You've Been Lied To About Genetics

[@chengong388]

I’d say Mendels is not wrong, in fact he’s super correct on how single genes get inherited. It’s just that there are so many genes and none of them get to exclusively define any describable trait, such that knowing how single genes work don’t really help you understand how describable traits get inherited.

[@CAMSLAYER13]

Yea, thats the impression I was getting. He wasn't strictly wrong, its just much more complicated in practice

[@GrimReaperNegi]

Yeah. What I got from this is that Mendel wasn't wrong, its just we now of new tech to discover it isn't as simple, like the tent/pinball allegory, new discoveries lead to new definitions, atleast in this case.

[@benenwren4110]

Yeah. I think framing it the way this video does makes it seem more obfuscated than it is. Genes are predictable, but you cannot predict their effects without looking at the whole picture.

[@ACuriousChild]

THE CONFUSION starts with the binary concept being used as 0/1 .... IT is WAY MORE COMPLEX and it NEVER can and NEVER will bee FULLY describable by THE BINARY SYSTEM HUMAN MIND .... observation is all that is left and THE CODING takes places outside THE REACH of THE HUMAN MIND! Exactly as described in THE BIBLE - GOD ALMIGHTY'S RIGHT HAND - not HIS LEFT HAND, as it has a different role and therefore meaning in Duality - CREATING EVERYTHING OUT OF "NOTHING"!

[@EastBurningRed]

mendel’s experimental results are very likely falsified btw. Even if he did the purified lineages as the video claimed, he couldn’t have gotten so close the ratios unless he was cheating

[@AJCEJ]

Ah... to grow 1000s of pea plants in a monastery during the 1800s😌

[@RandomAmbles]

Only *you* can prevent florist friars.

[@SubAnima]

What a simple life it would have been for 8 years. And no doubt he was a dedicated scientist, happy 200th Mendel 🥳

[@sadface6635]

Credit to Mendel though because back then people still thought the universe was created in 7 days. Like, he tried lol

[@simongross3122]

And all because he didn't like public speaking

[@onedaya_martian1238]

@@RandomAmbles Brilliant pun !!

[@cheezemonkeyeater]

"Way more complicated than we realized" basically describes everything about genetics.

[@billlyell8322]

One might even think it was by design.

[@jkahl5596]

Not just genetics, literally everything in the body, all the way to the universe. The more we learn the more complex it gets. Thats why I think we will never fully understand how the brain works, because of near infinite complexity

[@derrickrr5516]

Describes existence itself.

[@blizzard1198]

​@@jkahl5596 nothing can be near infinity and we've already mapped an insect brain which is a huge scientific achievement. Perhaps not on your life time but certainly as long as we don't go extinct etc, we'll be able to map and understand the brain

[@MichaelEllisYT]

A better way to think about genetic is that, rather than blueprints, they are a recipe. A lot of factors can go into making an apple pie turn out in a particular way, and it's not just the recipe ad ingredients list.

[@JoeSmith-cy9wj]

One hundred thumbs up for you.

[@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole]

I’m so distastefully ugly that my genes must have been a recipe for disaster. I’m going to eat myself and start from scratch.

[@quantumpotential7639]

In the eyes of God you are His creation and imo makes you a very incredible beautiful person. Agape Love ❤️ your way may God continue to keep and bless you in all your ways; after all they are a reflection of His majesty and glory.

[@Ottselracing]

and yet even in this video it's proven that it can be a blueprint

[@dohadeer8242]

Agree with you - that was exactly the way I was taught to think of DNA. More especially, to think of it like a commercial bakery recipe where the preparation and oven conditions are always the same so you don't need so many specific details to 'bake' the thing in the recipe itself. Humans (and most other mammals) are grown in 'purpose built incubators' (the womb) so there are far fewer potential environmental variables, meaning a need for fewer alternative versions of the DNA 'recipe'. That was also the explanation I was taught to explain why worm, frog or many other ';simple' organisms' DNA is generally far longer than a humans is - because there are multiple sets of recipes within theirs in case of changing growing environments that we don't need (e.g. "if it is warmer than 20C but cooler than 25C, use this part of the recipe, but if it is also humid, miss this part out...) . It's not a perfect concept model but works well enough to get the idea.

[@azrieloni258]

I'm a molecular biologist currently teaching in a university. This semester I was given genetics units to teach and most of the content and topics discussed within the course don't make sense to me as a molecular biologist. I wasn't really able to put my finger around it, but I already knew about polygenics, non-Mendelian genetics, epigenetics, and such. However, the way the course I'm currently teaching was designed is highly focused on Mendelian genetics which doesn't fully make sense to me. Thank you for giving me the answer "why".

[@SubAnima]

That's so great to hear - thanks for sharing!

[@joebob4579]

I want to learn epigenetics and genetics, how do i do that without learning mendelian genetics?

[@redwojak5182]

you're a biologist and use yt vids from a kid to learn? the vid is not even that good, is basically coping for bad gene havers

[@ДмитрийР8ж]

What are you going to do? Will you just keep teaching this stuff or will you drop every now and then "this is what they want me to teach you but it's not really accurate, here's how it actually works, just don't say it in tests"?

[@Stuart.Branson.]

You are being successfully indoctrinated, well done complier.

[@1booyakasha]

"It doesn't guarantee anything" but it is probabilistically related in such a way that you can be confident of the outcome in most instances. Appealing to genetic relativism because of fringe cases isn't useful.

[@dsm5d723]

Look at the work of Michael Levin and Nick Lane, not to mention the dean of sophisticated Darwinism Denis Noble, the genetic information is part of an embedded electromagnetic relationship in the materials. Levin's lab has grown frogs with eyes on their back, no change to the genes. They are learning how to program cellular networks with bioelectricity without changing the genes. Explain that with determinism. FWIW, I actually have figured out the relationship between genetic information and electrodynamics, but nobody understands me, despite offering a simple proof of concept experiment. If I want a deterministic gene drive, I will have to build it. Knowledge is not useful without resources. But it did keep me from taking a needless gene therapy vaccine.

[@NokiaTablet-pl7vt]

Environment plays such a big role. Even twins have completely different build lungs. The program might be the same, but small differences in conditions give different outcomes.

[@JDrocks4ever]

@@NokiaTablet-pl7vt I don’t think the argument is that we can guarantee outcomes. It’s more about probabilities, tendencies, predilections, etc. One is more predisposed to behave a particular way as opposed to another. Also one’s genetic aptitude/limitations may work to encourage or discourage from particular behaviors that otherwise would lead to different outcomes. It’s an oversimplification in the grand scheme of things as one also has to consider time period of birth, location, social landscape, economic circumstances, etc. All things that I believe demonstrate how much more it’s out our hands. Just gotta choose the right parents at the right time 😂

[@danic2514]

What’s genetic relativism

[@AndarilhoMarco]

@@JDrocks4ever In terms of behaviour, twins studies usually show genetics are dominant, with estimates of genetics determining about 70% of behaviour.

[@JKa244]

I think it's helpful to point out that many diseases, especially autosomal recessive ones, are in fact on or off by a single gene - while others, and most of our appearance, are far more complicated in origin

[@captaineflowchapka5535]

i wouldn't think there (the diseases ) are cause by a single gene more so they are a singular point of failure , of that fuck up other gene (sometime unrelated) interaction . because to think as a singular fault , it would mean you could explain the ammount of bullshit and unpredictability of genetic disease wwith a simple "that the one " which from personal experience (sick myself) and intuition doesn't make much sens

[@MaddieM4]

This was specifically addressed by the video! Even "single gene" diseases can often be treated by messing with other genes, or environmental factors.

[@divideandmultiply]

This was explained in the video and TBH if you know about autosomal dominant single gene disorders, you should also understand the concepts of penetrance and expressivity. Likewise genetic redundancy. All of which effect either the presence of a disease phenotype or its severity. If you've taken undergrad level biochem, you will also know that even single gene disorders are due to a point of alteration on a complex biochemical pathway that mediates interaction between inherited genetic, along with epigenetic, developmental and environmental inputs, thus there is rarely a case of perfect reflection of genotype, with an exact and non variable phenotype. At least in complex organisms.

[@narrativeless404]

@@captaineflowchapka5535 Yeah They are more like single-line errors fucking up the entire program

[@ninebrains4769]

Such a fantastic video!

[@hand.2]

i honestly love how in biology every rule is essentially just "yes, but". makes it so interesting.

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

That's why they're rules, not facts.

[@dohadeer8242]

The 'yes, but' part is the boundary condition - and it is where the true natural selection process happens, the engine of evolution. Genetic mutation is typically a largely a random occurrence but the boundary conditions of an environment will determine whether the mutation is of any value to an organism's survival or not. If is is then the organism will be more likely to survive and have offspring who reproduce that mutation. If not then the mutation usually dies out with the organism. So evolution is really just about about a critter having the right mutation at the right time and being to out-survive and out-reproduce its fellow critters as a result of that.

[@Biggance-s5l]

Yeah, it seems like polynomials. An approximation, but with each additional term you approach 100% accuracy, but usually never quite get there. This is how I'd imagine Machine learning approximating a particular behavior. At some point, considering how basic humans are. We can probably come up with a better Human genetic sequence. Which would be considerably smaller. I'd imagine we could probably come up with just a dozen genes of maybe 16kb to describe our legs & arms alone. Just construct it, some piping for blood, muscles in the right places. Maybe with molecular compression/decompression systems we could probably pack it pretty tight. Then you'd have essentially a human robot, everything physical/touch/sense would be 99% identical and in many cases tuned up 10x. With a simpler model, there'd be less risk of stuff going wrong, and there'd be room to create various maintenance microorganisms which are created based on some of the genes. The brain is pretty basic, but just need to make sure the soul connectivity works well, that's our uplink/downlink to the user experience in this game.

[@sarumano884]

@user-yt3pw5gx7q The trouble with that is a) how to chop out the garbage DNA b) what do you mean- garbage? We might chop out a whole chunk of "old, viral" 'Garbage' DNA to "improve" the NuHuman(TR) genome, then 45 years later find out that it actually did play a vital part in senility prevention. Law of Unintended Consequences.

[@bentuovila5296]

They're statistically predictive with a lot of individual noise.

[@spliter88]

I've been watching biology videos and documentaries for decades now and this is the first time I've seen someone actually mention the waddington analogy. (or in your other video, mentioned about proteins not just having one function). This is all great stuff, and I hope to see more videos from you!

[@bazoo513]

FWIW, when I was taught about Mendel's experiments (more than half a century ago in Croatia, then a part of Yugoslavia), we were warned that there are very few traits that are determined by a single gene, with exactly one dominant and one recessive allele. For elementary school, I think that this suffices.

[@Dalroc]

Same i Sweden.

[@gobdovan]

The video has a slight ideological substrate. It deliberately uses examples that are both complex and rare to emphasize its points, like the XY women case, which I'd argue takes away from otherwise the more complete model. In that context, one could argue that it intentionally misses the basic principles of Mendelian genetics to make a broader ideological point. For example, one place where Mendelian models work quite decently are blood types, and I doubt humans bred themselves to have four blood groups. And a much better illustration of the landscape model would be at-hand examples like height or aging rather than sex. Still a good video.

[@GrimReaperNegi]

@@swapdd All science is hypothesis-driven, and should be questioned with reason.

[@bazoo513]

@@gobdovan I disagree. XY example is perfect because it show that even something seemingly as simple as that is, in reality, much more complex, if relatively rarely.

[@bazoo513]

@@swapdd There still _are_ instances of almost pure mendelian inheritance: Someone mention basic blood types; another example a single nucleotide polymorphisms, often deleterious mutations. Here the concept of dominant and recessive alleles usually makes sense.

[@StickySyrupEverywhere]

I stumbled upon this. I remember discussing many of these very things in biology and related courses back in the eighties. Many of us, including older professors, sensed that early genetic theory was oversimplified. Very good presentation.

[@JesusChrist42000]

Genetic theory was literally in it's infancy in the 1980's 😂 we have had fifty years almost to advance and this video is scientifically unsubstantiated, it's a prime example of don't believe everything you see on the internet

[@GODHATESADOPTION]

Yup evolution is impossible only epigenetics

[@sarumano884]

I used to teach biology, and every lesson came with a warning that "This rule I taught you is NOT the whole picture: There are always exceptions." If I could, I'd show them a few. It was much easier then to explain differences e.g. between male and female body form, as compared to the textbook "male skeleton does this, female does that."

[@calebreynolds9183]

⁠@@GODHATESADOPTIONno

[@edwinphilips5212]

It's unfortunate we have lost that take on science. It is treated more like holy religion now, rather than a mathematically-based discipline for modeling perceived reality. Makes it much harder to take in new information.

[@jsfbr]

Wow! This one of the most important videos I've watched on KZbin to this day! It took me 65 years if life and approximately half a century since hifh school to learn this most precious lesson. Thank you very very much!

[@johnraymondkirkham]

Thank you for your amazing life affirming comment! (this is a sarcasm competition right?)

[@SedoKai]

The lesson you learned here is incorrect, though...

[@stonethemason12]

​@@SedoKai explaaaaaaaaaaaaaaain

[@iluan_]

As a biologist, I was taught mendelian genetics in college way back then. It has been a lot of work (but work that I love) keeping up with modern genetics and relearning these concepts. I'm thrilled by the idea that young students will be presented with a more realistic vision of genetics that takes into account the progress that has been done since back then. I do believe that upgrading one's knowledge will always be a task on every scientists "to do" list, but I also don't see any reason basic education should be stuck with the same lessons that is missing so much.

[@AR15andGOD]

Modern genetics has not improved at all

[@welcometochiles6156]

Sorry, the video was saying they should be, that one curriculum was an experiment thing. We students are still being taught these outdated genetics. And, as a student, I think students can understand this video's explanations. :(

[@sheepcommander_]

Yeah students are still very much being taught Mendelian genetics and _only_ mendelian genetics, with the very brief mentions of "non-mendelian genetics" pretty much just being extending it from a 2x2 to a 3x2

[@OatmealTheCrazy]

​@@welcometochiles6156 Not just that, most physics classes don't go very far past....500 years ago or so. Chemistry is usually behind by about a century or so at least

[@bobleclair5665]

I’d rather be a student than a teacher

[@bigjd2k]

DNA is like the body’s firmware. There are functions to do all sorts of things, but whether they’re run depends on a lot of factors. There’s also bugs and malware too. It’s fascinating!

[@BenightedAlizar]

The first spaghetti code!

[@markoconnell804]

DNA is far more complex than your metaphor. But good try.

[@Entropy67]

@@markoconnell804 I don't understand, why?

[@l.a.wright6912]

Yeah I was about to say this. Honestly it's a far better metaphor than any one that the video uses.

[@piotrczubryt1111]

@@Entropy67 Do you want one semester course to be compressed in a few words?

[@justhadtosay680]

Really enjoyed this, appreciate the energy in the presenter, easy to follow and enjoyable can tell the man loves learning and sharing it! Thanks

[@dsmtuner2g]

Mendel wasn't wrong, his observations just dont apply to all of genetics. If you get past the first week of genetics 101, they clarify the proper application of Mendelian genetics

[@Ottselracing]

@@kevinbrooks9074 schizo

[@ExecutiveChefLance]

Bingo. Literally ANYTHING past Genetics 101 will make it so obvious. Honestly in my experience once you to 3000 lvl classes is when you TRULY learn stuff. BUT saying that the reason I always got A's in all my advanced Science classes is because I knew the basics so well. Being a Biochemistry and Medical Microbiology double major these videos about Science lying to you makes me literally want to blow my brains out. I've been studying this stuff forever hand me a paper just outside my fields of study and it will take me awhile to actually go through. Organic Chemistry? Higher Level Math? That stuff is a different language. Even though I took up to Calc 4 and whole O-Chem series. It is like saying the Pizza and French Fry thing when learning to Ski from South Park is lie. It is an analogy of what your supposed to do.

[@scottdrake5159]

@@ExecutiveChefLance Or... you could look at the mentioned Genetics Pedagogies Project and read the sources in the description with an open mind. Granted, most of the world isn't as well-educated as you are, or we wouldn't see "Genes Found That Make You Rich", not to mention the horrors of the 20th century that came from misunderstandings of genetics (that you are too intelligent to fall for). Or the trans panic. Or scientific racism. Or any of an uncountable number of atrocities based on the "simple facts" of genetics. I'm willing to give a different approach to introducing genetics a chance.

[@walterrutherford8321]

And this is what he says in the video. Genetic traits are seldom a single on/off switch. Mendel wasn't trying to describe genetics but something much more narrow and specialized, plant hybridization. But to do that he first had to deliberately eliminate all of the extra variables so he was truly studying a single on/off switch. But it's a necessary place to start. It's like Newton's models for speed being corrected by Einstein. Newton is only wrong at extremely high speeds.

[@dsmtuner2g]

@@walterrutherford8321 Mendellian genetics are not about "on-off switches", while he was observing expression, it's about inheritance at its core. In this video, the guy claims none of the suppositions formed by Mendellian genetics are true, which is wrong. Obviously not all genetic inheritance works like Mendel thought, but some traits are truly Mendellian, even in humans.

[@ssm59]

I was in a human genetics program in the early 80s. At that time the technology for the human genome project was just passed the imaginary state, but still a long way from reality. One of my professors scoffed at the idea that the human genome project would take a long time to complete, and that it would not be very helpful once it was done, his position was that there were not as many genes as the people proposing the project suggested. That turned out to be true and why the project finished much earlier than anticipated. He also said that the genes, although essential, is only the first layer of complexity. The real wild west of genetics was in the control and replication of those genes for which we have almost no understanding.

[@funnycatvideos5490]

This is the whole point mapping the genome was almost useless is like mapping something they can change the next time you look at it and they try to call that quantum but it's really just existence as a whole. Genes can change as you get older in life which is why Hair and eye color can change over time

[@dsmtuner2g]

@@funnycatvideos5490 do you mean that your genes literally change from coding for one thing to something else?

[@lapiccolanonnina9801]

Yes, activation or deactivation of genes rely not only on its sequence but also on its epigenetics.

[@compendiumyo3358]

*sigh* the intelligence of the 80s. 😢Rip

[@voraxe3032]

​@@compendiumyo3358thats the English for you

[@dawnemile7499]

I find that modern science is much more prepared to lie than classic science.

[@frankshannon3235]

I still say that "most of the time" is an operative phrase that is a solid foundation for a healthy, happy and productive society.

[@noalear]

So this can be boiled down to "most traits rely on multiple genes and it gets super complicated fast" which we all understood quite well in high school Biology in 2000. Im having trouble figuring out where the lie was.

[@demogorgon4244]

the lie is in the air, in the "intellectual" atmosphere or landscape. the lie lives like a myth amongst rednecks and the lie is used by today's intellectuals making sweeping arguments that can be boiled down to "sex is binary" or "white people are smarters cuz genetics".

[@stm7810]

no, also to that it's not just genes as seen in identical twins or in cloned insects, environment including nutrition, cosmic rays, temp, socialization etc etc all play big roles.

[@deadlyorchard]

XY -> male and YY -> women is the lie.

[@AnkhArcRod]

@@stm7810 Yeah. That is also taught in high school text books. The famous identical twin experiment (/accidentally separated) was taught as well. The exact nature of how the environment and external factors actually affect gene expression was implied but the mechanics was not taught. I think that was sufficient.

[@stm7810]

@@AnkhArcRod if your school taught all this great, but mine and many others upheald fascist myths about the power of genetics. and yes it was fascism like thinking disabled people not reproducing would make the world better.

[@cactusimon]

“Lied to” is a click bait title. No conspiracy to it. This is just an *evolving* scientific theory.

[@European-Man-88]

Yup. Most science channels are click bait it would seem

[@sexywarriorwomen]

Kids are lied to about what they are learning all the time. How many planets were you taught about in school? And how many exist? Oh, we’ll just skip the dwarf planets cause no body cares about those, etc. It is lies because some dean is too lazy to bother staying on the edge of what is known and just teach what is standard. I know professors who say it’s harder to teach now because so many kids know what is beyond the curriculum.

[@SedoKai]

​@@sexywarriorwomenI don't care what anyone says, there will always be 9 planets in my book unless that planet X in the kuiper belt gets discovered.

[@planetdog1641]

They skew everything if it goes against their theory.

[@MankindDiary]

@@sexywarriorwomen Those are not the lies, Jesus... You're saying people lie instead of being factual, which comes a bit ironic from someone who doesn't give two hecks about the definition of words you're using.

[@brunoaraujo2368]

I've just come across your channel yesterday and was left absolutely astonished! The way you can translate scientific concepts and ideas into simpler metaphors without losing their original complexity and realistic implications is truly something to admire. Specially considering the obvious effort you take into researching the literature and maintaining a very evidence based approach. Congratulations from Brazil! We would greatly benefit from science communicators like you around here.

[@k98killer]

I got a biotechnology degree 8 years ago. While I knew a bit about the subtleties and nuances of gene expression due to a course I took on developmental biology (senior year), this is the first time I've heard of the marble run model. The genetics courses I took with lab components were focused on Mendelian genetics as a general model, e.g. with breeding Drosophila melanogaster or splicing genes into bacterial plasmids, with any divergences from the Mendelian model noted as something like "yeah, this happens; the Mendelian model is incomplete, and we don't have a replacement yet".

[@-John-Doe-]

_“…and we don’t have a replacement yet”_ Is the most frustrating part in academia. Models are sticky for the sake of curriculum. You’re in a room full of people devoted to a field and the moment anyone has any insight, it’s an inconvenience. It’s like having a room full of engineers and a problem… but no one told them the solution yet…

[@ctriseathletics1803]

...still don't understand enough about the nuisances to come up w a complete model

[@funnycatvideos5490]

But that is not a nuance it is a fallacy altogether breaks the Model to nothing Just like almost all of science these days @@ctriseathletics1803

[@RobertoRoccoAngeloni]

First time you hear it because is a marxist's construct to derange people.

[@captainwheelbarrow649]

Same experience here.

[@njhoepner]

All these years...I'm 59 now...this is the first time I've heard anything about Mendel having deliberately purified the breeds of peas he was using. It would have changed so much about what I understood by the time I finished high school. Thanks, Subanima!

[@HungNguyen98765]

Can't believe this gem has so little exposure. I hope your channel explode one day!

[@Alster26]

It isn't so much that we were lied to about genetics as they turned out more complicated than 1 gene equals one trait. Each gene is often linked to several traits and traits are often influenced by multiple genes, so it isn't as easy as flicking off one mutated gene to cure a genetic disorder because that might also trigger 3 or 4 other problems or it might not do anything because it wasn't the only gene causing the problem.

[@michaellacy8510]

Anyone working in genetics knew this. It’s important to distinguish between science and marketing.

[@CardCaptor32584]

As a biologist myself, i don't have an issue teaching simplified genetics before teaching advanced genetics. We do the same in physics when we introduce perfect spheres and frictionless surfaces. The more challenging aspect of education is to actually grab a student's interest. Get the kids equipped with enough knowledge to start getting their hands into experiments and you get kids who want to pursue further education. Drown kids in way too many details and you get kids who want to run to recess ASAP.

[@LvOneRose]

Problems start to arise when it's not explained that these are simplifications. Adults who think they know the whole truth because of a half remembered science lesson from decades ago end up justifying hate with appeals to science.

[@CardCaptor32584]

@@EveningFox I do see your point lol. But I also remember tutoring my friends in HS who couldn't even understand the simple model and simple statistics. Those guys would stand no chance lol. I guess it just goes back to whether people choose to use education to categorize students, filter, or be inclusive. I don't really have the numbers, but, from my experience, learning simplified science never hurt anyone. The ones who end up learning more will learn more. The ones who don't care will just get some limited exposure and move on with their lives.

[@azrieloni258]

I would have to disagree with this. Simplifying biology for those who will have their future career related in biology makes it harder for them to learn new and more correct concepts. Let me give you one, in a class I teach they were taught that in DNA replication, the template leading strand is... from left to right is 3' to 5' and the lagging strand from left to right is 5' to 3'. Which is somewhat correct if you only look at the most basic model of DNA replication. However, in reality, the opening of the replication bubble is bidirectional, and the template for the leading strand unzipping in one direction also is the template for the lagging strand that is unzipping in another direction. Another fact to add is that sequences aren't supposed to be read from left to right as it's not english text. It may be read 3'>5' and vice versa as the DNA is not restricted in the 2d plane as what they're seeing is just a 2d model.

[@AdudeUkno]

…you loved that topic so much you made a career out of it. You enjoy it so you want others to enjoy it. Sadly that’s not what makes a good teacher. Teaching is an art by itself the topic being taught is secondary if not tertiary. The simplified genetics isn’t complicated so of course your students understand it. However, you are setting your students up for a major mental roadblock in the future that will leave many if not most completely confused, frustrated, and uninterested in learning more. Especially in the fast pace learning environment in schools. Show the big picture before explaining individual pieces or else your students will, in the future, struggle and many will fail out.

[@RealPackCat]

@@rambunctiousvegetable transgendqueer is a disease of the mind, not just biological input. Yes, maybe there are malware in the brain, reinforced by social experimentation and indoctrination. In short, people's social IQ is more shaped by the environment around them, not as a birth trait. If you grow up surrounded by gays, you are probably 80% more likely to experiment. If you grow up in a wholesome 2 parent (mom & day) nuclear family who believes in a higher power, you are more likely to be accepted as normal. The problem we have in today's society, is everyone wants to declare their own behavior as normal vs what thousands of generations of families have taught us. It's like people ran out of old ideas and want to invent their own, the more disgusting to the rest of society, the better. Take long hair in the 60's. But it did not require us to mutilate our bodies and think we can change our biology.

[@ChristianDemirdzhiyan]

What an amazingly edited video. I can't imagine how much time it took you to research this topic with different views. Thank you for doing this!

[@BBBrasil]

Another common misconception: The recipe wasn't "created", there never was an objective or a target to be achieved. A gene for blue eyes was never a recipe for blue eyes. It is a variation of a prior gene, for example brown-expressing gene. The mutation that gave origin to blue eyes can be a variety of changes, inside the gene nucleotide sequence, in the position of the gene regards other genes, position in the chromosome, effect of stress and environment in methylation, the list can be very long indeed, but all random. We are just seeing what the interaction between organism and environment allow us to see. In Krypton this gene could be a super-power and no blue eyes.

[@crow2989]

Even if Mendel’s Laws of Inheritance was wrong in the bigger picture, a lot was still learn and paved way for others to look more closely at what’s actually going own with genes. Even in school, alot of kids would talk about the 4 square thing with each other trying to figure out some things about our genetics. I have hazel green eyes while neither of my parents nor siblings have them, only brown eyes. My grandmother says her father had eyes just like mine. Genetics is so cool, almost like a peek to the past

[@davidduran8601]

Or maybe you and yor brothers are half brothers that would be closer to the truth than believing your grandma, she has to say something than makes uou feel better not worse.

[@crow2989]

@@davidduran8601 Dude, she has photos, you are a clown

[@eskimocommotion4965]

​@@davidduran8601wow! You know how to make friends the easy way! I wish I had that talent. Maybe it's in your inbredity. My family almost always had gone outside our pool since we are not Royals.

[@7resist7tyranny7]

​@@eskimocommotion4965Tough guy is most definitely an inbred

[@ThecouncilOf8]

Same could be said for Darwin he paved the way but left a lot of big ass potholes for us to fill and fundamentalist religious people to be willfully ignorant of and demand road construction be abandoned

[@jimsweeney7339]

I took genetics in the 80's and even then, Mendal was taught as an ideal case based on his selection of strains that were "pure". Fruit flies (the bane of all genetics students) are another example. It was never presented in my classes that gene A means you will express trait B. It was presented that there was an interaction of many genes for most traits. I think you have to start simply to teach people but have an obligation to ensure they know it is a simple model for teaching that does not explain the whole story. The same is done in chemistry, math etc. You don't start math with differential equations, you have to build up to it. Following the logic presented, physics, chemistry, math, biology all "lie" to teach people yet oddly enough we have made advances in all of those so something must be right. Over the course of my career I have been involved in many building projects, all of them had a great set of blueprints that we followed and almost immediately resulted in change orders based on environmental, material or construction issues. I think this is somewhat of an analogy for genetics. The "blueprint" is in the genes, but the final product can vary considerably depending on environment and other factors. I think the title you have been lied to may be catchy to get people to watch the video but is misleading.

[@Darth_Insidious]

These disciplines should never lie to students, when teaching Newton's law of gravity it should be clarified that while reasonably accurate in many cases it often fails in other cases. When teaching chemistry the bohr model should be emphasized as primitive compared to the valence shell model.

[@paurushbhatnagar8100]

True

[@gobdovan]

@@Darth_Insidious no model is true, mate.

[@Projolo]

​@@Darth_Insidiousthey didn't teach you that all models are just predictions and not true

[@Darth_Insidious]

@@gobdovan When did I imply that any model is 100% true? I advocate for the opposite, to teach students that what they are learning in these disciplines is a model that makes accurate predictions, and that even the best models of our time may one day be succeeded by models that make even better predictions. I don't want children to be given the impression what they are learning is absolute, especially when it what they are learning was succeeded over 50 years ago by something better. Simpler models should be taught when the complex ones take more than reasonable amounts of knowledge for students to understand, but it should also be hinted at that more complex models have replaced it.

[@higherresolution4490]

Excellent presentation. This is the second video I've seen from you and both of them are top-notch. I just subscribed.

[@segamai]

Absolutely fantastic video. And it’s hard to believe in coincidence when I just started reading Eugenia Cheng’s The Joy Of Abstraction and she mentions exactly the same approach to switching around the curriculum for students (math in her case), from increasingly dense concrete examples building towards a more abstract overview, to the opposite of that

[@coachhannah2403]

Um, somebody incapable of understanding what is said is NOT 'They lied to you.'

[@tomfitzsimmons6535]

To repeat he simplification simply because it is simple, though inaccurate, is.

[@cjay2]

It's the usual clickbait for an idea. Agree. It's disrespectful to the person who discovered/invented the first concept.

[@neotronextrem]

Well, speak for yourself. We wasted an entire first semester, Genes were working purely based on Mendel. Sure, any sensible person will realise it's an oversimplification, just by the fact that Promoters exist, but they are teaching these oversimplifications in schools and Universities still. Some Teachers/Proffs haven't touched a fucking Paper in decades and it shows.

[@RainVine]

When my immune system was attacking my eyeball and trying to make me blind, the emergency eye doctor checked my DNA and discovered I had a gene that caused it, and it ran in my family. They were ble to treat it. So no you don't need a card, they just check you at the clinic via blood test! My eye is fine now.

[@marcosamuelfabus1044]

I really look forward to every one of your new videos, thank you for another great one! The analogies are crystal clear and very useful:)

[@SubAnima]

Thanks again Marco! Appreciate the support :)

[@chrislee176]

If schizophrenia is in a neurological condition, why is it treated by psychiatrists instead of neurologists, why is it not defined neurologically instead of by behaviour, and why is it not observed in autopsy?

[@mattlm64]

I too dislike oversimplification when learning as it only leads to an incorrect understanding and confusion when you try to figure out why things don't work out the way you were taught. It's important to be open-minded and willing to question everything you've been taught for that reason.

[@UpsideDown853]

This. Very true

[@longdreameclipse]

Wow. I was sure this channel had at least several hundred thousand subs just watching it. Really good job. I loved your video about organisms/the ship of Theseus/the principle of non-self too.

[@clutchnshift1]

Cool. Genes are the ingredients (like for a pizza), and one can expect a typical outcome from thise genes, but it is possible for the ingredients to be mixed in the wrong ratios, and/or cooked at an inappropriate temperature, giving you a different outcome from the same genes (like making a raw, dry, salty, soggy, undercooked or burnt pizza).

[@burt591]

It's still a blueprint tho, just way more complex than the one Mendelian model presents

[@bobbyburgle4536]

Nah

[@r-saint]

more like a suggestion

[@burt591]

@@r-saint So if you clone somebody, the clone will be completely different than the original?

[@r-saint]

@@burt591 Can't really tell with a sheep, they all look the same, even not clones. And human cloning is forbidden. But it seems so, yes. Not completely but we wouldn't call them the same person.

[@burt591]

@@r-saint Maybe just very small differences, but for the most part they would be pretty much identical. Just like if you give the blueprint of a house to 2 different construction teams, to make you 2 houses, they may end up with small differences, but for the most part the houses will be identical, because they are making them based on the same blueprint

[@homeopathicfossil-fuels4789]

I think of DNA as a sort of special zip file, compressed information that translates into more complex patterns of machines and keys. It literally just determines how an eukaryote cell /ought/ to act in different forms and stages, not how they /will/ act

[@NeoShameMan]

More like lossy decompression as a metaphore

[@crowwick7652]

Agreed. I’ve explained to my three children that our DNA is our ‘potential’ but is influenced by everything and the environment (including a mom’s diet) influencing an embryo’s potential. There are always anomalies because of large and small factors.

[@stevedoetsch]

Wow, we just showed evidence for intelligent design and pro-life all at once!

[@NeoShameMan]

@@stevedoetsch but not in the definition you think of, rofl Here that is proof for an intelligent universe, not a separate daddy God, and pro life as in cells are alive, not as embryo are people.

[@homeopathicfossil-fuels4789]

@@NeoShameManIt is a theological thing and depends on the churches whether god is a monadic entity or a cosmic all-thing. But I am speaking as an atheist and a self taught computer programmer and engineering hobbyist with zero academic merit in neither astrophysics, philosophy nor theology. All I know is that religious questions are outside my jurisdiction. Now back to ZIP files that uncompress into industrial economies existing in a beautiful fractal world!

[@YosigoDosigogo]

Really enjoyed your coverage of this subject area. Thank you.

[@Lukilliano]

That was a very nice video! I remember my high scool biology teacher telling me that people with different eyecolors dont exist, so after she saw mine she was just confused😂

[@UTshaman]

Beautiful!

[@brainfloss9710]

I don't think I've ever had a lengthy conversation about genetics without it so easily sliding into eugenics.

[@bruceolga3644]

Ewe huemans are fixed ribosome waiting for mRNA data programming to copy paste transmit the data given...👁️ subroutine programs stuck in platforms......

[@titanomachy2217]

Yeah, better to be on the safe side and get rid of the science of genetics entirely, otherwise people might notice that humans are animals. Lysenkoism 2.0 here we come!

[@irenafarm]

I have, but I converse with animal breeders a lot. So…same but not same lol.

[@Cronama]

I don't understand why people are so uncomfortable with eugenics when it's practiced every day by people that don't even know the definition of the word.

[@ravissary79]

Voluntary breeding... fine. Sterilizing and suppressing the reproduction of classes considered undesirable by the elite? Not OK. The first one isn't eugenics, it's just people being people. The second is a wet step away from Seig Heil and selling the baby parts of minorities.

[@Lisa-d6n5c]

Your hair is funny. Thanks for the insight smarty 😊

[@dollyraestar7624]

This is so good! Explained something that I've understood on an intuitive level from looking at the world and talking about it, but not understood the mechanism for very clearly (as someone who stopped studying science formally at 16) in such easy-to-understand terms. Vital stuff, given all the conclusions people leap to from the standard basic misunderstanding of genetics... I've subscribed and will definitely be sharing this and checking out your other videos. Thanks!

[@SubAnima]

Thank you so much! Glad you enjoyed ☺️

[@yamrzou]

Great and informative video, as usual. I really appreciate what you're trying to do in your different videos, i.e. making an understanding of the complex reality accessible to the layperson, it's rare and much needed.

[@SubAnima]

Thanks, great to hear that you're enjoying them!

[@benjaminjones5029]

​@SubAnima how come you didn't see the Waddington thing as a pinball machine???¿?????¿

[@jamesart9]

Great presentation. Particularly liked how you presented common thinking on the topic, without influence, and then say simply that it is mostly wrong. The illustrations and experiment demos are great to, making it super easy to follow you along. Overall, very well done. I look forward to what you present in future.

[@TheLaughingDove]

I love this, aside from the fact that there are certain traits which are single-gene determined in the mendelian fashion, and the argument kind of implies their null existence. Eye colour in humans is polygenetic, but sickle-cell trait and disease is largely determined by a single gene (at least last I checked), and single gene colour mutations are obviously hugely popular in reptile and bird hobbies for their ease of breeding. Been seeing a couple of presumably polygenetically stacked line-bred animals like high red bullsnakes popping up more, and I'm sure rose breeders would nod in miserable and fervid vigor to the variation available in their offspring, but it doesn't eliminate single gene traits from our understanding of genetics, just puts them in perspective with the myriad other possibilities. Definitely a good video mind, mostly just saying that it misses a chance to put single gene traits clearly as one type of inheritance among a myriad of other factors rather than implying single gene traits are null and void

[@larsmich1874]

Those people who constantly say we are over-polulated wants to help us live longer? I do not believe that for one second.

[@kapnkerf2532]

Really like this channel. I've always hated laboring under misapprehensions from my science education and love revisiting these models. Atoms are not red and white balls with blue balls spinning around them. Electricity isn't water in a pipe. Evolution is not an 'Animorphs' book cover. Truth resists simplicity. Good stuff.

[@TheEmissaryofCheese]

Fascinating. I have been following other developments in genetics and the ultimate conclusion in this video seems to resonate with all of them. I feel this was an important video and/or statement to make. I can tell from other comments made that there are a lot of people who feel defensive about what they learned in school. The thing is that it should be ok to find out the world isn't flat or that some lines of dinosaurs gave rise to birds. New discoveries and new understandings of the world are made all the time. I liked punnet squares, but the idea that they don't necessarily work in the real world or that it conveys a flawed view of how genetics work is ok. It does tell me however that we should change the curriculum in school though.

[@mattpotter8725]

I agree that the curriculum is it's not pointing out the limitations of the very early view of genetics, but I still think starting simple and giving context, whilst giving a taster of the more complex reality of how genetics works and what the current understanding of genetics is, is the best way to go. You wouldn't throw out Newton's laws of gravity from the syllabus just because it doesn't work under certain conditions and jump into teaching 12 year olds quantum mechanics and special relativity would you? I don't think that would work do you? I think that would switch a lot of people off. I also don't think it would stop populists and the news media misreporting and sensationalising new discoveries which is suggested in the video.

[@dawnkeyy]

This isn't really cutting edge hidden knowledge as the video (and your comment) sort of imply. Highschool kids are taught simplified models, because you can't teach everything to highschool kids at a PhD level, not because they are too dumb, but because there just isn't enough time.

[@UpsideDown853]

Thank you for this post. Truly. I Wonder how many are Defensive because they simply enjoyed the topic in school. As someone with a degree in the field I have a harder time fighting self-identified science enthusiasts rather than collegues in the matter. The way we explain models shapes our understanding. Mendel is a cool thing, but certainly a bad point to start in genetics. We teach children “gravity” not “items fall down”.

[@samueltucker8473]

Never seen a blue print that could repair itself

[@Anthrofuturism]

I like to conceptualize them as how geography effects the weather, so the arrangement of a mountain pass effects where the wind goes... But also the wind effects the weathering and erosion of the mountains shaping them slowly in very subtle ways over time (epigenetics).

[@petitio_principii]

Epigenetics is not only "subtle," every cell differentiation making up different tissues in a macroorganism is the result of the interplay between genetics and epigenetics. The have the same genes as any other cell type, but are developed into "completely" different phenotypes by epigenetic processes. Epigenetics is "development" not just the "random noise" on it.

[@TakesTwoToTango]

I'm a physics teacher. This was a very interesting video for me. I'd like to weigh in on the "shouldn't students be taught the simple model?" question, as I think it's a bit more nuanced. I think some of these ponderings might come from physics. Maybe I'm just seeing a nail here because I'm holding a hammer, but in physics the "teach HS students the oversimplified model" holds very true. Concrete examples are: * The ideal gas law. * Newton's Laws. * Ohm's law and rules for solving circuits. All of these models are oversimplified. They are all only valid in special cases, and they are all edge cases of better, more correct physical laws. And in every one of these cases I would very strongly argue against teaching the more correct model(s) instead of the faulty one. However, I think there are some crucial differences with genetics (if I correctly understand this video). 1) The 'edge cases' where these laws apply tends to be most of everyday life. In genetics, this seems to not be the case. 2) The better models are MUCH more complex, and are usually built on what we know from those simpler models. In genetics, it seems that the real models fundamentally contradict the simpler ones. 3) The better models typically require several extra courses of mathematics to get started with, so they're fundamentally less accessable. Now, it's important to note that from an educational POV, it is NOT a good idea to give students real life complicated problems at too early a stage. Beginner students simply do not have the thinking patterns present that experts do, so they can't evaluate the complex material in the same way. There is no real shortcut: they need to go through foundational material untill they have the brain wiring. This is NOT because students are stupid, it's because they're human and need to build on the knowledge (or lack thereof) they have. However, I don't think this is a good reason to teach students things that are simply wrong or misleading. Simplify the correct models as much as is necessary, and be honest about students that there is (much) more to learn. As an example for this: once the graphs and figures at 8:22 were shown, it immediately connected all the content in this video to knowledge I have. I immediately linked this to 'oh, so something like the environment can pbb change the number of stable outcomes' in my mind. This is because I spent months slogging on dynamical systems in undergrad (and I hated it, it cost me a lot of effort). A highschool student wouldn't have those mental connections, and rather than simplifying everything for them those graphs would be an extra layer of complication for them.

[@utahcornelius9704]

When you go from the universe, to our supercluster of stars, to our cluster, to our galaxy, to our solar system, to the inner planets, to our planet, to the macrolevel of our bodies, to our cells, to our molecules, to our atoms, to our quantum particles, you are going to find surprising complexity and eye-popping, unexpected differences in how we measure and understand from level to level. Each science I peek into, I eventually (and often quickly) find something totally unexpected, based on my macro-experience, "common sense," and fundamental sensory perceptions. I would never have intuited the electromagnetic spectrum, spacetime, wave-particles, much less mass "provided" by the Higgs Boson or all that stuff that takes place in the first second of the universe. And hundreds of mitochondria? I thought it was the powerhouse, singular? Electrical action potentials triggering chemical neurotransmitter communications? And the atom is, for all intents and purposes, just space, yet we don't fall through our chairs? And 98% plus of the mass in the solar system is in the Sun? Voyager 2, after fifty-plus years, remains 14,000-28.000 years from the edge of our solar system, the volume of which consists predominantly of a hypothetical, yet scientifically widely accepted, yet publicly widely unknown, spherical Oort Cloud of comets at the outer edge? Pretty much all of it, even genetics, has to be presented piecemeal in layers, from simpler to more and more complex, and one layer may look very different from another... And the whole experience is going to feel like drinking from a firehose at times, too much, too quick, to digest. And some of it, for some us, is just beyond comprehension or imagining. And much of it, like dark matter and dark energy, and the reason the sun's atmosphere is hotter than its surface, remains unknown. Answers, knowledge, technolgies, even cures, may come, but each seems to produce more questions. Quanta may not be the most fundamental matter. And that's okay. What a journey!

[@TakesTwoToTango]

@@stephengalvin Respectfully, I strongly disagree with the more correct models being mathematical conjecture. The better models are better at predicting reality than the simplified edge case ones. For Newton's Laws, we know Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are the better models. Both correctly explain tons of phenomena that Newton's Laws don't. Eg quantum tunneling in a tunneling microscope, or the UV catastrophe, time dilation in GPS satellites, the orbit of Mercury,... Ideal gas law fails at pressures and temperatures achieved in industrial processes, so better gas laws are used. Now for electricity it's Maxwell's Laws. I'll be honest: application wise I know the least about those. But when Veritasium recently posted a thought experiment about a really long wire it got a lot of people very confused. People tried to disprove him using the simplified laws (inductance, Ohm, ...) and 'electrons moving through a wire' model, only to have a couple of channels (including Veritasium) verify the results based on Maxwell experimentally. Aether was essentially disproven with the Michaelson Morley experiments as far as I know. You'd need a good reason to overthrow those experiments.

[@edus9636]

@@stephengalvin The Michaelson Morley experiment didn't disprove the concept of aether at all, but was (mis)used by the materialists to erase anything immaterial from (pure materialistic) "science". The same occurred with the vital force being forcibly erased when urea was found to be formed (artificially) in the lab. Now they call aether "dark energy" (lol!) and life an "emergent property" (lol!), contradicting themselves. That's how desperate they are.

[@marksizer3486]

The simplifications need to be taught as simplifications, not "the way it works". In my physics classes, this was usually apparent (frictionless surfaces, etc...). In my biology classes, much less so. But there is no reason not to SHOW, as opposed to "teach", reality. Here's a good example: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHK7p2dvmamEgNk

[@rileysimmons6572]

All models are wrong, but some are useful

[@Ali7Gaming]

Where did you get that from?Identical twins cannot be different sexes. 7:21

[@michael.forkert]

_Dissecting, dismantling, and atomizing things will never tell us WHY they exist, or what’s the purpose they are here for._

[@tainicon4639]

That’s because why and purpose are unanswerable questions… And arguably not even valid questions. Why in purpose are subjective motivations described by humans two things, but not something intrinsic to the fabric of reality.

[@olenick9590]

The why and function is only relevent to behavior, epigentics is fascinating, but We, anything that exists as a being, a plant an animal are perfect, whatever society and culture tries to do to bury the majority of us, they always forget we are seeds

[@atygr]

​@@tainicon4639well, just ask yourself why do we create things, one of these could be why we're here, or were here because we're the by product of something that exists outside of our understanding atm.

[@NateHatch]

It's so nice to see someone clarifying these complex misunderstandings in science. Great video!

[@thenonexistinghero]

@@LarsLarsen77 Well, for some reason I had the feeling that the video creator is mostly so much behind this theory because it falls more in line with his own beliefs of gender fluidity being a thing.

[@explosu]

@@thenonexistinghero Wow that's who cares

[@RosettaStoned-s1t]

My kids are me. I am everywhere.

[@buczumajster3671]

I find it beautiful that your "idols" or sources of inspiration are visible ,it really makes your channel more accessible to newcomers besides everything being already great

[@pharuhs]

What's interesting is that I feel like I've already been taught this, but with those Punnett squares and stuff. I think a teacher taught my class the previous stuff of the "blueprints" but only to start our understanding since it can get complicated, but ended up saying that it was more like we've got options in our DNA, so in a way yes blueprints still, but we've got options that are more complicated than "blue or brown" that are affected by our environment. Like a reaction to what best fits. Thanks for this !

[@seaneustace9838]

They just seem to work like dimmer switches rather than on off buttons I don’t see how this really affects Mendelian genetics

[@dei-dei]

So this video got me mad in a good way, I'm a med student and already studied genetics IN UNI and yet I was never told of this. I do remember being taught that sometimes there was a percentage of cases where a dominant gene wouldn't be expressed, but they clarified this was a small percentage and was very disease and math problems oriented. I'm honestly so disappointed rn, how can it be that I passed genetics in med school yet never heard of this?

[@voraxe3032]

Cuz they dumb 😂

[@enadegheeghaghe6369]

It's been 4 months but I found your comment shocking. I took Genetics in medical school (in a third world country) and it was made clear that most if not all human biological traits result from an interplay between multiple genes and environmental factors. Nothing in this video surprised me at all.

[@troyharder7337]

So how does this disprove genetic determinism? Genes still determine the range of possible traits. No one thinks that it is possible to predict the life of an organism with 100% accuracy based on its genes. Of course, all people know at least about such things as nutrition, viruses, natural environment, etc. However, many factors that influence organisms are considered different from the influence of genes and are considered as environment. But in fact, this environment is made up of other genes (for example, the people around you are a very large part of the environment). Thus, each gene's environment is mostly other genes, plus a natural environment independent of gene influence, such as the sun, and a natural environment partially influenced by genes, such as the atmosphere.

[@fuzonzord9301]

And why would even genetic determinism lead to blaming individuals? Like it's not like individuals choose genetic code.

[@JKenny44]

Yeah there's far too much politics baked into this video. Just because they are complex doesn't mean they aren't the key determining factor in development. It's our genes which make us human after all.

[@rumfordc]

"determine the range" is a contradiction in terms. a range is a lack of determination.

[@stefanl5183]

I agree totally. It seems to me the video has an agenda to prove Mendel was somehow wrong. That's bad sciences and it's what's wrong with a lot of science today. Good science would accept wherever the evidence leads regardless of our personal opinions surrounding the matter. Einstein made this mistake. He could never accept Quantum mechanics because it didn't align with his personal opinion of how the universe should be. I think as humans we allow our biases to blind us to inconvenient truths.

[@FreakGUY-007]

​@@JKenny44 I mean if it's not gene. What is it? Even if environment is necessary but ultimately it's the gene which gets influenced and we get a specific phenotype. I suspect this guy has some agenda.

[@ClockworkGearhead]

"It's a lie!" Clickbait like this is how you end up with things like scientific winters.

[@Dalhte]

Nice video. Mendelian inheritance is still a useful to analyse inheritance of "molecular" phenotype (basically, inheritance of mutations them self and of the PCR product or output of what ever technique you use to study them). As a Univ teach in biology, I have no problems to begin with some mendelian trait but I do agree that it should not be the alpha and the omega of the course as even Mendel did observe complex trait inheritance influence by numerous loci. SRY is a nice example of mainly 100% mendlelian inheritance. So I would be a little bit more subtil than "it does not explain anything" by speaking about probabilities. Have SRY raise strongly the probability to be born "male" but other genes can modify the outcome. All is about probabilities and mendelian inheritance are probabilities monsters of 0 to 1 prob without much intermediary. I love the fact that you self corrected your self : we don't inherite genes, we inherite gene variation or alleles. There is no gene for intelligence, weight beauty of whatever, but allelic variations associated with quantitative shifts in the aforementioned phenotypes. A long post to said basically : Good work :)

[@anantpreetkaur2396]

I quite agree about the statement you mentioned that We don't inherit genes , we inherit gene variations and alleles But aren't they also somehow genes like allele is a pair of 2 genes

[@derekfume8810]

Mendels is right about genes, and the talking point of this video is actually a traits that these genes should be representing and mechanisms of inheritance. Genes do just right as Mendels described, and his experiment rather show the principle of Gene inheritance on a simple plant, where this inheritance could be easily traced visually by the color of the beans. Of course the color is not strictly defined by genes, but that doesn't say mush about genes but about traits that defined with combination of other genes in accordance.

[@gLitCheRR44]

ironically enough, this video is oversimplified and misleading

[@jojostalino1377]

It's not false, if it's true 99,9% of the time.

[@TheSavageGent]

Nope a lie can be 99.9% true lol

[@vaska1999]

​@@TheSavageGent No deception involved here.

[@TheJrsPapa]

so then is it a truth if it is false 99.9% of the time?

[@TheSavageGent]

@@TheJrsPapa exactly lol

[@TheSavageGent]

@@TheJrsPapa There are different levels of “truth” but ppl often throw them all together

[@DctrBread]

i applaud your position on education. many educators believe that all of the true techniques and knowledge is "advanced" and should be saved until some indeterminate exclusive tier of education. To teach in such a way is the first step to turning education into a cult, and it is already a serious disease in the way our education is structured.

[@NotThisShipSister1]

Well said

[@ThecouncilOf8]

While I agree with you in theory you also have people who hear half of a thought experiment and then get 100 million tik Tok followers only to tell them some crackpot theory like the electromagnetic universe four flat Earth it's a double-edged sword my friend for every person it enlightens the other edge extinguishes

[@DctrBread]

@@ThecouncilOf8 this is specifically about how our education is built, not how imformation is shared in general. I say that incorrect or incomplete information is drilled into students as a matter of course, and the excuse is that the better information will be delivered in high school, or college, or in grad school

[@ThecouncilOf8]

@@DctrBread I mean that happens in elementary school you get a dumb down version of History yes which is corrected in intermediate Middle and high School when the child is old enough to hear the violent truths of history aside from that no not really knowledge is a commodity unfortunately and they aren't hiding knowledge at all you have the sum total of human knowledge in your f****** hand most people just don't use it or take the time to sift through the internet to find the correct information and that's on the individual

[@SimGunther]

Who would've known genetics have more to do with Plinko than blueprints? 🤯

[@sabhishek9289]

What is Plinko?

[@TheXTrunner]

@@sabhishek9289 seems to be a form of the marbles run game thing

[@elio7610]

​@@sabhishek9289It is like pachinko

[@ALLANX7]

@@elio7610 gambler or weeb?

[@commentvsreply2420]

​@@ALLANX7possibly both

[@SabrinaXe]

This video was so well done. The illustrations were so intuitive to understand. I also really appreciated the value lessons regarding Mandelism because I see a lot of people falling for that binary bias regarding genes. Thank you for speaking about it! Please continue to make unbiased biology videos!! Much love 💞💞

[@samuelthecamel]

The more I learn, the more I realize that the grade school curriculum needs some serious updating.

[@dereks4531]

You haven't learned anything from this video I'm afraid 😂😂

[@mkloppel]

An exception to a rule...doesn't break a rule. An exception such as this does not prove the abnormal to be the normal.

[@UpsideDown853]

What? Mendel is the exception, not the rule.

[@walerominiyi]

@@UpsideDown853 I think they were referring to the example of the Y-Chromosome in sex determination. Given that there are only two gametes and in the vast majority of cases people with Y-Chromosomes are male and X are female, the existence of exceptions to the rule do not invalidate the rule. My issue with this video is that the process of gene expression being more complex than a simple direct deterministic relationship does not mean that genes play no part in the resultant expression. I know that's not what the video states, but the framing sort of implies this.

[@UpsideDown853]

@@walerominiyi Nobody is stating this. People are just recognizing that sex is more complex. It‘s tiring to me that I only hear these arguments from people uneducated beyond Highschool level biology. I never hear these perspectives from my research group or other colleagues. Why is it that the more someone knows or researches about genetics/genomics the higher the tendency for them to be non-binary/trans or intersex affirming? Left-handed people are also “uncommon” but we now know that they are truthfully not possessed by the devil or disobedient. It’s simply a variation with no value attached. Same goes for green-eyed people, gingers, or people weird bendy thumbs. Things evolve. It’s just how it is.

[@MilesTeg87]

When you really study biology, and study it across the different kingdoms of life, you'll come to the realization that there is no such thing as unbreakable rules, because that's where the potential for evolution lies. Normal or abnormal doesn't mean shit in nature. Living entities (as species) are in a constant exploration of the space of posibilities, because the adaptative landscape in which we reside is in continual evolution. It's not the same as saying everything is possible for a species, as you can "get locked" in a genetic dead end with no further movements. Sickle cell anemia is not good, but in certain cases and places can help you avoid malaria. Again, rules don't mean shit to nature the sense that something can't be changed. Evolution is all about bending and eventually breaking the rules, thus a barrier in the way of life can be removed. If that messed up something about your understanding of sex, life or evolution, don't worry, we'll be dead millions of years before that can change if it does happen.

[@mkloppel]

@UpsideDown853 To admit variance admits a standard. By implying that *this* is variance is admitting there is a point to differentiate *from*. A normal. That normal is arrived at, or should be, by the reality of your nature. Not the muddled and muddy subjective expressions. Biology is science. It should be identifying reality, a male has a penis which is supposed to be used for insemination. A human can choose to use it differently, that person is still a male.

[@culi7068]

Amazingly well-done video. Great explanation and you developed a wonderful and rich metaphor to go forward with in deepening my understanding of genetics. Thank you! As someone who's had to sit through introductory economics courses multiple times due to being a transfer student in college, I get extremely frustrated with the sorts of arguments espoused by that HN comment you showed. I consider Econ 101's simplified concepts not only empirically wrong, but actively harmful towards people's understandings of how economic analysis actually works

[@SubAnima]

Thank you so much. I definitely agree, I wanted to put this extra bit in the video but it seemed a little too much, but I'll say it here: To me, it seems as though this kind of logic is an extension of gatekeeping in academia. Something along the lines of "we high academics have the right to know what reality looks like, and you lowly students must be lied to because you're too stupid." People might not say that explicitly, but that's ultimately what it amounts to. Why can't everyone have access to the best fruits of science (and knowledge in general)? And the 'too complicated for them' excuse is such a copout. 1. What makes you so much smarter? 2. Get better at teaching. End rant haha (wanted to keep the video a little lighter than all that).

[@irbis_rosh]

Mendel's peas may not be have uncovered the nuaces of heredity, but it sure did uncover the special recipe of the Habsburg dynasty.

[@filbertshi5932]

You earned my sub. My fundamentals of biology has been improved and now have a more accurate understanding of how genes actually work in the real worlds.

[@goodday23456]

According to the Book of Enoch, Noah was born with blonde hair and blue eyes to parents of dark hair and eyes. The father was upset, prayed to the Lord to ask if Noah was his baby and what happened? The Lord explained that it was ok, the child was his and God was destining Him for a great work of Salvation.

[@ronaldkloosterman456]

These videos are really good! Thanks for making them:)

[@SubAnima]

Thanks!

[@johnnybg_1936]

I disagree, that Mendelion Theory is outdated. In my opinion, the misunderstaning is caused by interpreting it as a theory on genes - and yes, it once was - while it is a theory on Properties. Think of eye colour as a property, and that the probability of a certain eye colour, is determined by the eye-colour of parents and grand-parents, where the properies are either dominant or recessive. The explanation of how these properties come to be, and of whether they are dominant or recessive in a certain individual, thát is the modern genetics in Waddingford's genetics. And thén taking into account all that influences the effect every single gene can have on the outcome of a certain property, destroys eugenetics, as eugenetics assumed every property was determined by one gene, dominant or recessive, and that that property of the genes was fixed.

[@shimagyohable]

We have NOT been lied to. To understand any process better, it is essential to start from its basic principles, and Gregor Mendel laid that foundation. Who says that the present level of knowledge of genetics is the ultimate? Watch your language, future generations might well say our generation lied!

[@PloverTechOfficial]

I’ve never understood the “teach oversimplified model first” method of teaching, if you allow kids in school to see the real complex system, they’re going to understand other complex stuff better; but if you just give them oversimplified stuff they’ll start to have a harder time understanding more advanced concepts. I know that when I was in school I found it incredibly infuriating when the rules would suddenly change from what they drilled into our heads for years on end. Like late physics where they just casually move from the Bohr model to the Murray George model, which basically abolishes a few previous concepts. (On Schrödinger’s theory, Thankfully I’ve never had trouble seeing electrons as clouds)

[@mylesleggette7520]

Clearly you've never had to get a room full of 30 children of wildly varying ability and interest levels to engage with a topic enough that they can pass state-mandated exams... Remember, the primary purpose of school is to warehouse children and avoid legal liabilities. If you want your children to be educated to a high level, you need to homeschool them and do it yourself. If you want to make excuses about how you don't have the time to do that because you have more important things to take care of than your own children, don't whine and complain when strangers are less invested than their own parents.

[@PloverTechOfficial]

@@mylesleggette7520 I’m not saying that people shouldn’t have help with learning, I’m just saying that it’s in no way helpful to drastically change the rules of a topic after insistently teaching certain rules previously.

[@jamesdunbar2386]

This is a fantastic video! Very glad to have stumbled on it. Very concise explanation of a concept so important. Biology is both far more complicated and far better understood than the average person would think!

[@vincentanderson5794]

so because its not just a 4 square system.. you still notice that if you have xx chromosomes you most likely have a womb and a vagina, and if you have a xy chromosome you have a prostate and a penis, so no matter what slot you fall into these are the most constant, of all.. so there are not over 100 different genders, because xx have ovaries and xy does not.. because it is not simple does not make it more then what it really is.. 100 different yellows are still just a yellow.. yellow is still not blue.. even if there are 100 different blues, does not make any of the 100 different blues into a yellow.. facts that don't make different into a different color..

[@LucasFavaro]

I just want to make an addendum: just because the mechanisms for transforming genotype into phenotype are complex and difficult to understand, it is not true that then is not possible to discover the influence of genes on the physical or behavioral characteristics of individuals. For example, there is data on identical twins separated at birth, and from these data is possible, using statistical techniques, to isolate (with a certain degree of precision) the influence of genes on beliefs and behaviors, such as religiosity, intelligence, personality, etc. -- and this even if absolutely nothing is known about the mechanisms that cause such phenomena to occur.

[@Prometheus7272]

Your behaviour is connected to genetics, it's just that we don't really understand genetics.

[@burner555]

"You've commited 5 murders, arson and 17 cases of sexual assault, but you're genetically wired to do it so we let it slide" "It's genetical" is the perfect excuse for people that lack responsability

[@suavitelrocks]

Nor behavior

[@billballinger5622]

There is a connection for sure

[@Mythendor]

The second half of your statement is absolutely correct...the first half...not so much!

[@micronerd]

​@@Mythendor He does have a point though with the first half (although this is the eternal nature vs nurture debate): there are (epi)genetic factors that can impact behavioral traits, e.g. neurodivergent disorders or risk factors for developing behavioral issues such as substance abuse. Although generally nurture > nature, genetic (risk) factors can sometimes also be relevant in certain cases.

[@dshepherd107]

You thought of a great demonstration to explain this. Well done!

[@neithanm]

When I see you have a new video I say to myself "welp, another thing I thought I knew goes out the window". Worth it every time mate. PS: I'm very excited about AI, it'll be an indispensable tool to harness the messy biology I learn here it is. Those tools are not yet ready (like current protein folding models) but will come sooner than people outside the field believe, guaranteed.

[@SubAnima]

Haha thanks a lot, appreciate it. AI is an interesting one. I think it will be an incredible tool for doing science in the 21st century. As for whether those things are ‘alive’ well .. no: doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.650726

[@neithanm]

@@SubAnima Absolutely. I've watched Levin's presentation on bioelectricity a few times to slowly understand it better every time. A few things boggle my mind but nothing stronger than consciousness in all its aspects. I'm a just CS person that hted bio xD and always considered myself a physicality until I started reading about it. Watching your stuff, Levin's, Chalmers etc help things click with a few mind-blows along the way, but the more I know about it the more lost I feel. Is consciousness something up your alley here?

[@SubAnima]

Ah very cool. Yeah I hated how bio was taught at school as well (that's why I fight so hard against some of those concepts here lol). Consciousness is a tricky one. Literally. I guess I got interested in bio itself first because there seem to be enough handholds to get about getting a real answer to the question "what is life?" within my lifetime. As to the question "what is consciousness?" or what Chalmers' calls the 'hard problem', i just don't see any handholds up that cliff face. It seems too far beyond me, but I really do respect the people who think about it haha. I also thinking getting a better understanding of life first will be a huge help in understanding the mind. Have a look at 'enactivism' - I'm actually just reading more about it with a book called Biological Autonomy (Moreno and Mossio). So far it's really interesting and pretty well written so you might like it too.

[@atomictraveller]

@@SubAnima "you've been lied to.." about everything of course it's the ma5onic state. imagine if scientists were epistemologists. :O

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

14:08 Mendel was only 7 years old! He was brilliant for that age, wow!

[@simplyme5324]

Given chemical systems with various repair mechanisms which also have to react to the environment (epigenetics), I would not claim that genetics is wrong. But there is a large difference between the simple studies Mendel did in 1902 and the vast amount of knowledge we have today about all those biochemical processes in living systems today. It is unfair to compare old research which is partly true but has exceptions to describe the complexity of systems we deal with today. Example : If I throw a ball I can approximately calculate where it will land. Newton's equations of motion. Do they hold for quantum mechanics? No. Is the photoeffect a complete description of how the subatomic world interacts and thus how chemical reactions take place? No. They are approximations. Everywhere in the natural sciences you deal with approximations. We cannot even solve a three body problem exactly. With the ball I can approximately calculate where it will end but what model do I use for friction, the precise force vector exerted from my arm etc? Mendel's model is a school model for simplicity. For the trajectory of the ball, the parabola from the throw is normally enough. But if I wanted to measure the position of my thrown ball up to the micrometer, of course I'd fail. For that precision I'd need to build new precision devices, know the exact wind strength, mass of the ball, complete mathematical description of how it looks when put under a giant microscope, my body, my arm, all the electrical impulses etc. This is why we have models and use different models in different cases. Does the Schrödinger equation completely describe and solve chemistry once and for all? Yes, it does if we knew all potentials and could calculate the solution. Can we do that? No. We run simulations of small proteins. The entire software is based on combined research of generations of scientists. You can get a PhD for optimizing some small parameters in a system with millions of parameters, grown over 30-50 years. We use entropy, run the simulation a lot of tims. And even that gives us only one single protein in a body with millions of different proteins, millions of chemical reactions which can have various pathways and which are all coupled. You don't compare DNA formation, manipulation of certain base pairs etc which you cannot even decently calculate on a computer because you need so many parametersfor that simulation to a concept from 1902 where some dude crossed some plants and say Genetics is wrong. This is the thing about statistics. We work with simple models and try to predict things but in an open world with billions of parameters it is impossible to calculate it all. This is why we have different sciences, social sciences, politics, all that stuff. Physicists in the 18th century thought once they knew all actions and forces in the universe they could predict everything that will ever happen or could happen. In theory - partly. But even a single cell organism is close to impossible to completely simulate on a supercomputer on the molecular level. And that is not even taking quantum effects into account. Now go from a single cell to a system built on billions of them where all the processes take time simultaneously. School physics and early models are very simple models compared to the knowledge we have today. You need to see which model you can apply when. Only because the model is too simple it does not mean that the entire theory is complete trash.

[@agoogolofgeese]

Why are they still teaching Mendel’s theories and punnett squares? I returned to college at age 31, 4 years ago, and had a bio class where they (re)taught me all that. Insane.

[@nealjroberts4050]

Because simple models are useful as a starting point. And actually work in some cases.

[@NotThisShipSister1]

@@nealjroberts4050Never

[@dawnkeyy]

Because they aren't wrong. They are limited. Just like newtonian physics

[@MankindDiary]

Asking why are we teaching mendelian genetics if it cannot explain the whole genetics is like asking why are we teaching Newtonian physics if it cannot explain all of the interactions between matter.

[@iain5615]

I think the current curriculum fits the outlook of a number of people who have influence on our curriculum. They want people to think that we are just the product of our genes and our consciousness is purely deterministic. Nice to teach people that they are automons with no real control of their environment - it fits us nicely into controllable boxes.

[@Galbex21]

Im 32 almost 33 and I was stuck with the Mendel model because thats why I learned in high school. Then my field is engineering and architecture. So now when I see people talking about gender and all the debate surrounding that it makes more sense that there are overlapping situations where its not entirely clear. Biology is super interesting.😮😮😮 Wtf man I feel lied.

[@derpy_blue]

your videos give me a fresh outlook on biology, they are entertainingly humbling in a way, making me realise how little I know and will ever know simultaneously encouraging me to study and discover as much as I can just so someday I can have my whole worldview collapse because a new theory emerges 😃

[@SheikhN-bible-syndrome]

This content on this channel is refined in a much more layman's terms kind of way but yet more efficient and more precise at explaining what's being discussed than most college campus classes dream to be able to accomplish and yet this is free on KZbin. Pass me the popcorn i love finding these kind of Diamonds in the Rough

[@billyvsbilly1]

I hope your channel blows up at some point. Great content

[@Edarnon_Brodie]

The only lie about genetics is that you can identify your exact nationality with it.

[@poldertalk]

Weldon's pea color plate is not a cross but a chaotic collection of commercial peas with overall variation due to genotype, phenotype, environment and even ripening. So it's misleading to claim that Weldon attempted to reproduce Mendel's results.

[@SubAnima]

That’s a fair point perhaps the wording could be better. Weldon didn’t try to replicate Mendel’s crosses but wanted to show that the trait was more complicated than a mere binary. EDIT: I’ve added a correction in the description, thanks for pointing it out.

[@poldertalk]

@@SubAnima Thanks for that. Weldon thought , like Galton, that ancestry influenced heredity. Therefore he was very critical on Mendel.

[@BrendonChase_2015]

The blueprint metaphor is still useful tho and no Mendel's model wasn't wrong, only very limited. Curious how the "working together" part is left unexplored, since it would loosely translate into "epigenetics" which is the decisive factor in how genetic & environmental input is read or indeed transcribed. The epigenetic complex is also the most probable "unit of natural selection" instead of simply the "gene(s)" + random mutations.