ダーク

The Longest-Running Evolution Experiment

Veritasium
チャンネル登録
再生回数 4 275 085
98% 221 000 4 300

If you ran evolution all over again, would you get humans? How repeatable is ? This video is sponsored by @BountyBrand.

Special thanks to Prof. Richard Lenski and team for showing me around the lab - it is an honor to be able to witness and document such a historic science experiment.
Thanks to Dr Zachary Blount for the help with research and setting up the competition time-lapse, Dr Nkrumah Grant for microscope images of the long-term line cells @NkrumahGrant
Devin Lake, Kate Bellgowan, and Dr. Minako Izutsu for being part of this video. Long Live the LTEE!

LTEE website - myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/index.html
Intro footage courtesy of the Kishony Lab - kishony.technion.ac.il
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
References:
Lenski, R. E., & Travisano, M. (1994). Dynamics of adaptation and diversification: a 10,000-generation experiment with bacterial populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 91(15), 6808-6814. - ve42.co/Lenski1994

Lenski, R. E., Rose, M. R., Simpson, S. C., & Tadler, S. C. (1991). Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. The American Naturalist, 138(6), 1315-1341. - ve42.co/Lenski1991

Good, B. H., McDonald, M. J., Barrick, J. E., Lenski, R. E., & Desai, M. M. (2017). The dynamics of molecular evolution over 60,000 generations. Nature, 551(7678), 45-50. - ve42.co/Good2017

Blount, Z. D., Borland, C. Z., & Lenski, R. E. (2008). Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(23), 7899-7906. - ve42.co/Blount2008

Blount, Z. D., Lenski, R. E., & Losos, J. B. (2018). Contingency and determinism in evolution: Replaying life’s tape. Science, 362(6415). - ve42.co/Blount2018

Wiser, M. J., Ribeck, N., & Lenski, R. E. (2013). Long-term dynamics of adaptation in asexual populations. Science, 342(6164), 1364-1367. - ve42.co/Wiser2013

N, Scharping. (2019). How a 30-Year Experiment Has Fundamentally Changed Our View of How Evolution Works. Discover - ve42.co/Scharping

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Special thanks to Patreon supporters: Mike Tung, Evgeny Skvortsov, Meekay, Ismail Öncü Usta, Paul Peijzel, Crated Comments, Anna, Mac Malkawi, Michael Schneider, Oleksii Leonov, Jim Osmun, Tyson McDowell, Ludovic Robillard, Jim buckmaster, fanime96, Juan Benet, Ruslan Khroma, Robert Blum, Richard Sundvall, Lee Redden, Vincent, Marinus Kuivenhoven, Alfred Wallace, Arjun Chakroborty, Joar Wandborg, Clayton Greenwell, Pindex, Michael Krugman, Cy 'kkm' K'Nelson, Sam Lutfi, Ron Neal

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Research and Writing by by Derek Muller, Petr Lebedev and Casey Rentz
Animation by Iván Tello
Filmed by Derek Muller, Emily Zhang and Raquel Nuno
Edited by Derek Muller
Music by Jonny Hyman and from Epidemic Sound epidemicsound.com
Additional video supplied by Getty Images
Thumbnail image courtesy of the Kishony Lab
Produced by Casey Rentz
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

に公開

 

2021/06/16

共有:

共有:

ダウンロード:

読み込み中.....

追加:

私のプレイリスト
後で見る
コメント数 24 395
Tastier jungle 46
Tastier jungle 46 16 時間 前
Dutlniv tioogattlyg
wjb40
wjb40 17 時間 前
Wait wait wait. Did I see them using the same pipette for each population and simply "rinsing & flame cleaning it" between populations?
Bossie Pieterse
Bossie Pieterse 21 時間 前
Grow something other than a bacteria, and I’ll buy your assertion that macro evolution is proven by this experiment.
infinitelyExplosive
infinitelyExplosive 8 時間 前
@Bossie Pieterse And you still don't understand what evolution says, lol. The fact that you're asking for _the exact opposite_ of evolution should be a hint. Is it really this hard for you to type "evolution" into google and read the first result?
Bossie Pieterse
Bossie Pieterse 11 時間 前
@infinitelyExplosive Bro. Horses were bred from average in size to draft horse size to miniature in a few generations. But horses they stay. And I have no doubt that even after 78 000 generations, you’ll still have just that: horses. In as much as you have ZERO evidence of evolution in the fossil record, this experiment too offers zero proof of macro evolution. Bacteria will stay bacteria till kingdom come, but how nice is it to have the supposed ‘millions of years’ in the back pocket to stitch up your unproven theory.
infinitelyExplosive
infinitelyExplosive 18 時間 前
You might want to go and learn what evolution says
Theuns Goosen
It is however, just variation within the same species. No new species is being created.
infinitelyExplosive
Since species are defined by a threshold of DNA similarity, doesn't that mean that the changes are part of the process of speciation?
sapnupuas
sapnupuas 日 前
why are they evolving e coli 🤢
Land of OZ
Land of OZ 日 前
Sorry buddy that's not evolution as people believe it to be So stop lying.. there is macro and micro evolution.. u are describing micro. 1. There is NO Increase in information 2. Its only a scramble of information the bacteria already have 3. And it's in a controlled environment.. 4. It's still the same bacteria, it did NOT even become a different bacteria
infinitelyExplosive
@Land of OZ Yes you can. For example, I could represent 安 as U+5B89. Alternatively, I could describe every stroke by defining the start and end points of a series of straight line segments. Regardless of the details of how you choose to encode the information, it's clear that duplicating a subsection of a sequence _adds information._ So your argument that there is no increase in information is clearly false. You did say the bacteria can't change. You literally said _"the bacteria will always be the same bacteria."_ Bacteria that cannot aerobically consume citrate are obviously not the same as bacteria that can. So what do you call fossil and living evidence of the development of the eye, going photoreceptor -> photoreceptor in a depression -> photoreceptor with pinhole -> fully enclosed space -> lens -> eye? It's pretty clear to me that this would qualify as macro evolution.
Land of OZ
Land of OZ 日 前
@infinitelyExplosive Um. No u cant do that with Chinese and latin.. And now u went into computer code, that's making big jumps in comparison.. I never said the bacteria didnt change. If u actually read what I typed... I said its micro. Not macro.. every evolutionist talks big about things evolving...but they can only talk about micro evolution but actually always inferring to macro. That's the big lie and deception
infinitelyExplosive
@Land of OZ You say that you can never get Chinese characters from Latin ones, but you can perfectly represent every Chinese character using a combination of Latin ones. Thus there's no difference in information. This is a fundamental idea that computer science has taught us, it's why everyone can use the same 1s and 0s in their computers and get different things to happen. Essentially, Chinese and Latin characters are different ways to encode the same information. It's hilarious that you're trying to claim bacteria will never change in the comments of a video that directly shows bacteria changing. Seriously, how stupid can you be?
Land of OZ
Land of OZ 日 前
@infinitelyExplosive You think so? Let me explain, the english alphabet contains the entirety of our language no new letter are added. But there are no Arabic letter or chinese letters in our alphabet.. So no matter how u scramble the english alphabet you will never get a Chinese letter... do u understand now? Everyone believes in micro evolution...that is something that is we see everyday.. But the bacteria he was talking about will always be a bacteria and will always be the same bacteria.. I get mad when they talk about evolution but what they really mean macro. Like how they believe dinosaurs became birds. That's impossible and a lie.. If they were honest enough to admit all we see is micro evolution they wouldn't be able to push macro
infinitelyExplosive
How is a region being duplicated _not_ new information? Do you think that every new book contains no new information since it's only a scramble of the alphabet that books already have?
Alvin Friesen
Alvin Friesen 2 日 前
Day 1000, "What do you mean they got out?!"
Jote Soft
Jote Soft 2 日 前
This is not evolution this is simple adoption
lazzer408
lazzer408 2 日 前
Do you want covid? Cause this is how you get covid.
Waffle gaming
Waffle gaming 20 時間 前
what?
7albessa 3andna
7albessa 3andna 3 日 前
It is a very very cool experiment. But the question is like after 70000 generations Do the belong to the same species?
Hamma Lammadingdong
They are in the process of speciation.
Inturnet Action
Inturnet Action 3 日 前
7:48 They can be frozen for (billions of years) long periods of time.
Richard Loewenhagen
The 'Discipline' required to pull this research off is simply awesome!
robert akerman
robert akerman 4 日 前
Unsure if the same curette (or syringe) is continually used throughout. Too, are ONLY the elder strains frozen? That just might inhibit those strains.
Craig
Craig 4 日 前
And covid came from a bat you say...
Mel Orca
Mel Orca 4 日 前
"You are watching evolution in action". If this test proves anything, it is that after thousands of generations these bacteria are still recognizable as the same species. They have not produced a different species (although they can if we are flexible with the definition of "species", but not otherwise). The only end result you will get is variation possible within the particular species. This is not any different from someone making a computer program, including some genetic algorithms, and running it. His program will "evolve" within the parameters he included with the algorithms.
Hamma Lammadingdong
They exhibit changes in heritable traits: ergo evolution.
infinitelyExplosive
So why do you think that there's a special boundary at the (arbitrary) distinction of species beyond which bacteria cannot change further? What's different between a mutation that causes a bacteria to cross our threshold for species compared to a mutation that crosses the threshold for subspecies?
Matthew Pollock
Matthew Pollock 4 日 前
You want super germs? Cause that's how you get super germs!
Joseph Rangel
Joseph Rangel 5 日 前
Reintroduce the individual populations. One to each whatever the exponent then a containment composesed of a collective from each of the. Original 12.
William Lin
William Lin 5 日 前
This was the longest bounty commercial I’ve ever seen!
TheStarflight41
TheStarflight41 6 日 前
And bacteria stay bacteria. Finches stay finches. This does not bode well for macroevolution.
Waffle gaming
Waffle gaming 20 時間 前
@Gareth H almost no one in this comments section is :(
Gareth H
Gareth H 3 日 前
It would pretty much disprove evolution if that did not happen. You are not very well educated.
infinitelyExplosive
The descendents of bacteria also being bacteria is a fundamental principle of evolution. A fundamental principle of a theory being true obviously bodes well for it.
Brendan Manning
Brendan Manning 6 日 前
Did the organism change into new species? That is evolution. What you demonstrated was variation within a species. You only fool the ignorant , the gullible and true believes. I have unsubscribed.
Hamma Lammadingdong
Speciation has been directly observed and documented dozens of times. That train already left the station.
infinitelyExplosive
Ironic that you call others ignorant while not knowing the basic definitions of the words you use.
Kenneth Pace
Kenneth Pace 6 日 前
Evolution: So a giraffe or fish or tree-fish or anything but the same bacteria grew out of it? No? So the bacteria learned how to deal with a new molecule. Not really "evolution." It's the most mis-used word around...
Gareth H
Gareth H 3 日 前
It is certainly misused by the poorly educated like yourself.
Hamma Lammadingdong
It’s a change in heritable traits. So… evolution.
NJM
NJM 6 日 前
The next Fauci ! Gain of function min 12....
nom3n nescio
nom3n nescio 7 日 前
4:38 As a person working in a lab, that dude working without gloves is disturbing. An working on a table?? Why not on laminar??
Trent Baus
Trent Baus 8 日 前
That is adaptation. The genetic information for the antibiotic resistance was already present in the bacteria's genetic code. It just wasn't expressed because expressing that code makes the bacteria less fit overall compared to normal healthy bacteria in an environment free of antibiotics. No new genetic information was added. IF it had been, that could potentially be evidence for evolution. However, this is not the case. Dr. Dawkins himself has admitted there are NO examples where mutations have added ANY new information to an organism's genetic code. Stop believing in fairy tales. Evolution and the Multiverse are so asinine it is embarrassing. Seeing people who espouse those theories dare to cast aspersions on people who claim to believe in any traditional religion truly displays the densest form of cognitive dissonance.
Gareth H
Gareth H 3 日 前
Total nonsense especially the lies you guys have to tell about Dawkins.
infinitelyExplosive
Do you also think that turning a light on isn't information because the light was already wired to be able to turn on?
bluereflega
bluereflega 8 日 前
the raiden shogun should definitely watch this video
Ar Kin
Ar Kin 8 日 前
So this is one of those days when life loses all meaning... I made the mistake of talking to some other parents about this channel, especially this video. And one of those brainamputated b-words dared to compare this experiment to the one rice-bullcrap from Japan. I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about. The first time I heard about was in the movie WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW or something like that. I did that experiment on my own, than again in Senior High with my biology class and than again in uni. Waste of time and resources, the same when arguing with religious people - can't fight insanity. I'm a vegan and Buddhist, donate money to PETA and GreenPeace, show my kids Earthlings at least once a month ... but wouldn't mind putting all those psychotic dipsh*ts in a rocket to anywhere - but Earth.
Patrick Scannell
That was the funniest product placement ever
stephen lee
stephen lee 8 日 前
Talk more about cryonics
Hatice Kızmaz
Hatice Kızmaz 8 日 前
May I need to remind that what we see is just growing and reproducing of bacteria readily exist in your hands? Mutation and adaptation are part of life but never enough, on their own, to be proof of evolution. Did they turn into new species or did they adapt to new conditions as the same bacteria? That is the question!
Waffle gaming
Waffle gaming 20 時間 前
the theory of evolution says that slight differences in each generation leads to evolution (extremely simplified.) which is exactly what happens in this experiment...
Droop Smoop
Droop Smoop 2 日 前
We've already directly observed speciation happen lol
Anthony S
Anthony S 9 日 前
Dont know if anyone will see this, Does anything know if the 4k video is 30 or 60 fps?
Waffle gaming
Waffle gaming 20 時間 前
4k video is at least 60 fps.
Yasin Aydın
Yasin Aydın 9 日 前
I so envy your work mate, keep up the good work
Darren Voong
Darren Voong 9 日 前
I should finish my essay but I’m stuck a veritasium spiral
Bill Onesty
Bill Onesty 10 日 前
Actually what is going on is that there are resistant strains in the bacteria population to begin with. Those are not killed by the first wave of antibiotics so they continue to grow and reproduce. ND SO ON. how do we know THIS is not the explanation instead of appealing to evolution? And how is it evolution if you NEVER have something other than e. coli resulting from every new generation?
infinitelyExplosive
It's almost like the theory of evolution says that the descendents of e. coli will also be e. coli...
McKai Henry
McKai Henry 10 日 前
It seems like we've gotten our selves into an infinite loop, creating antibiotics to kill bacteria that then get stronger and result in a need for a stronger antibiotic that they then evolve to survive and so on. Does creating super bacteria that's really hard to kill sound like a bad idea to anyone else?
Pisicile Warriors România
6:32 Romania 🇷🇴🤭
Judith *
Judith * 12 日 前
2119: Some dude feels sorry for the poor bacteria, so he pours them down the drain instead of kiling them. 2120: 99% of the humanity has been eradicated by a the novel E.coli bacterium. They call it the coli disease '19, or ColiD-19 for short. The remaining 1% decides to evolve into a species that only experiments with viruses and bacteria for the purpose of finding medicine.
CHAOS
CHAOS 12 日 前
If a bacteria like that test ended up on our selfs, would it die of age or something or would it be like those beings called "super bugs"?
itssoEC
itssoEC 14 日 前
I posted references and now I'm flagged for spam. Please review my post.
Sumak Dubenski
Sumak Dubenski 14 日 前
I don't see any evolution here. It's dormant genes going awake and expressing themselves, while other genes going dormant. IOW, a gene drift, akin to dogs growing more hair or getting a lighter or darker iris color. Still a dog. Show me this bacteria getting extra part in it, changing a shape, or forming a multi-cell organism, and we'll talk. For now, nice try, professor.
Hareecio Nelson
Hareecio Nelson 8 日 前
@Sumak Dubenski E.coli do not have the ability to feel pain, they're not sentient, they have no will to carry on living. This experiment has shown that even under non-changing environmental conditions, evolution by natural selection will always occur, according to the model discussed in the video.
Sumak Dubenski
Sumak Dubenski 8 日 前
​@Hareecio Nelson Okay, so they changed/evolved. I admit that. So did breeds of dogs, so there was no need to torture these poor little germs. If dog breeding proves something, so be it. What does it prove exactly?
Hareecio Nelson
Hareecio Nelson 8 日 前
@Sumak Dubenski Your original comment "I don't see an evolution here. It's dormant genes going awake and expressing themselves" This is incorrect. Evolution is change in a population over time. Whether these E.coli are now a different species or not is besides the point. They have changed (evolved) and the cause of this change has been mutation and natural selection.
Sumak Dubenski
Sumak Dubenski 8 日 前
@Hareecio Nelson Then the issue is in their classification, i.e. the way we collectively understand what makes a species. IOW, we built our own framework, find something that goes out of its bounds, and declare it a world moving, while the whole problem was in our own misunderstanding of it, and the world is merely staying in place (albeit minor gene oscillations). Again, this is the point of view difference. You're not more right than me
Sumak Dubenski
Sumak Dubenski 8 日 前
@infinitelyExplosive Mi pardone, so if I have never played piano, then started playing it when circumstances dictated it (say, no computer science jobs available, but need for piano players in brothels is through the roof), then I somehow "evolved"? Nice try, but you would need to work harder for that.
Rob Proctor
Rob Proctor 15 日 前
I'm sure this won't end with a super bacteria consuming the earth, this is totally safe.
Petr75661
Petr75661 15 日 前
have those bacteria already evolved into a folk duo?
Mark Pugong
Mark Pugong 15 日 前
I wish my brain evolves at such speed
Mustapha Titou
Mustapha Titou 16 日 前
the ability to consume citrate was in the bacteria from the begining, it was just activated due to lack of glucose , there is NO EVOLUTION, every thing was ALREADY CREATED.
Waffle gaming
Waffle gaming 20 時間 前
@Paul Garrett stop, stop, he's already dea-hea-head!!
Paul Garrett
Paul Garrett 15 日 前
@infinitelyExplosive because he's desperate for his imaginary friend to be real and will ignorantly deny anything that contradicts his favourite story book.
infinitelyExplosive
@Mustapha Titou gaining a new regulatory mode for a protein is very clearly a heritable change in the characteristics of a population which occurred over multiple generations. Why are you denying such obvious facts?
Mustapha Titou
Mustapha Titou 16 日 前
@infinitelyExplosive The Citrate transporter already exist in the bacteria E. COLI and was "silent" as linsky described, the Lack of glucose activated that's all, it's an adaptation and NOT A BLIND EVOLUTION.
infinitelyExplosive
In other words, the bacteria changed so that it could create the citrate transporter in different circumstances. Clearly evolution.
-7- man
-7- man 16 日 前
One of the best videos so far.
TheBajamin
TheBajamin 16 日 前
Except you show them touching the flask with no gloves, hands over the tops, no clean room, hair out on handlers, etc. LOL.
Yaroslav Sobolev
Yaroslav Sobolev 13 日 前
I feel you. For someone working in a biolab, watching it was pure agony. And they are trying to tell us that not a single contamination occurred in 30 years given such unimaginably careless and messy lab practices? With daily manipulations? It's a joke.
Alan Vanneman
Alan Vanneman 17 日 前
"... even on weekends." Because bacteria never take a day off.
Shiloh Song
Shiloh Song 17 日 前
Bacteria do not evolve into fish or frogs. They remain bacteria. They adapt and can change into more resistant bacteria, but they will always still remain as bacteria.
Waffle gaming
Waffle gaming 20 時間 前
finally someone comments something intelligent on this video...
Hareecio Nelson
Hareecio Nelson 12 日 前
Bacteria are very complex organisms: humans are not descended from modern bacteria, we're descended from the first Archae-like organism that consumed one specific bacteria (now a mitochondrion)
infinitelyExplosive
congratulations, you understand basic evolutionary theory!
Tracy Gilbert
Tracy Gilbert 17 日 前
But the bacteria STAY bacteria. When they change into a fish or dog or anything but E.Coli bacteria give me a call. Evolution? Not much.
Chaithanya
Chaithanya 7 日 前
Boy calm down. This is embarassing.
Sumak Dubenski
Sumak Dubenski 8 日 前
@Hareecio Nelson Yes, I know, I am the devil here. Saw the poor little germs evolved and freaked out. What if they grow tails and sharp teeth and start biting? Or worse, turn into youtubers.....oy vey
Hareecio Nelson
Hareecio Nelson 12 日 前
@Sumak Dubenski You missed the many parts of the video where they talk about mutation. Either you weren't concentrating, or you're being disingenuous
Matthew Wong
Matthew Wong 14 日 前
@Sumak Dubenski It isnt my problem if you would like to have your own definition of the word 'evolution', when you can search it up on the internet with just a few clicks. If thats ur definition of wise, then yea stick to it. Hard to say you're not wise when you make up your own mind on what being wise is, in this case yourself.
Sumak Dubenski
Sumak Dubenski 14 日 前
@Matthew Wong Nice try to move the goal posts. Evolution is supposedly a driving force behind the new species creation. Not just gene drifts within same species. Basically what is done here is just a few cards shuffled in the same deck, for the benefit of the yawning biomass (aka youtube watchers). You believe what you want to believe, son, and leave us old wise people alone
Optillian
Optillian 17 日 前
It’s amazing how far Biblezombies will go to deny evolution.
Droop Smoop
Droop Smoop 8 日 前
@Sumak Dubenski We call a seed sprouting, "a seed sprouting". You know, growth. That isn't evolution and nobody says it is. Nobody knows what algae could and will evolve into, but we already know that they have evolved. Because we've seen it. We can conclude that populations change allele frequences over time. Do you agree with me on that? Pre-programmed? So you think something pre-programmed inefficient designs and shared broken genes in loads of species? I'm kinda curious about that stance.
Sumak Dubenski
Sumak Dubenski 8 日 前
@Droop Smoop I am just amazed at the ability of some correspondents here to argue ad nauseam how many demons can dance on the tip of the needle. Evolution, shmevolution - ok, algae can exist in three forms now - single, multi-surface, and multi-inner, depending on the environment. Does it mean they will turn into amoebae one day if we continue the experiment? A newt perhaps? No one knows now, and perhaps no one will. If those algae morph consistently according to the environment, it means they already have been programmed (by whom?) to behave this way, similarly to a seed which when dropped into wet soil starting to sprout (do we call that evolution too now?) To conclude - yes, species can change. Algae, E.Coli, dog breeds, human traits with civilization. Where do you go from here? Do you conclude that algae evolved into a human based on those limited experiments? Or just let them be, and say, yes, evolution exists, but it is pre-programmed (again, by whom?) and may or may not result in more complex species than we already observed. I am in the latter camp.
Droop Smoop
Droop Smoop 8 日 前
@Sumak Dubenski What is your definition of evolution here? You are moving the goalposts to a whole other field (abiogenesis) and pretending you've got a point by trying to refute that. I provided you with an example of multicellularity coming about from unicellular organisms, or do you disagree with it?
Sumak Dubenski
Sumak Dubenski 8 日 前
@Droop Smoop Again, you're missing my point. If these unicellular algae "evolved" in your Petri dish for the first time in history, and you can somehow go back billions years to prove it, then yes, voila - you achieved a breakthrough. If the said algae were "always" (or at least for billions of years) able to form the same multicellular symbiotic bodies given the circumstances, then we only observe the actions of the dormant genes that have always been there, i.e. observe the innate property of these species to symbiosis/multicellularity. And that doesn't even start answering the question of how these E.Coli or algae "evolved" from something else (pile of premordial manure perhaps? anything else?)
Droop Smoop
Droop Smoop 13 日 前
@Sumak Dubenski Do you mean like how we've managed to observe multicellularity evolve in unicellular algae?
amp
amp 18 日 前
This is so interesting
D & K Grace
D & K Grace 18 日 前
Gotta to remember never to buy bounty.
Jason Pate
Jason Pate 18 日 前
Getting paid to do this is pointless. Hey I still have bacteria today amazing.
Hamma Lammadingdong
People, a bacteria is never going to become an animal. Nothing in the Theory of Evolution would allow that to happen. Please stop denying the science that you haven’t bothered to learn about.
Optillian
Optillian 14 日 前
@Sumak Dubenski I'd rather trust people who do research than people who believe in spirits and demons, thank you very much.
Sumak Dubenski
Sumak Dubenski 14 日 前
@Optillian And how do you know that? Read it in the Science magazine? Or because your local El Professore swore by his cat?
D & K Grace
D & K Grace 17 日 前
@Optillian You forgot - a very creative imagination. I think we call that Hollywood.
Hamma Lammadingdong
@Optillian Cheers, mate!
Optillian
Optillian 17 日 前
@Hamma Lammadingdong Oh. Sorry.
wxretro
wxretro 18 日 前
(Scientific Q, not trying to be a smart aleck) Anyone wonder how fast they are growing in those biohazard red bags wherever're they are disposed of.
Hareecio Nelson
Hareecio Nelson 12 日 前
99% of the bacteria are incinerated :(
Syncerus Caffer Caffer
But it's still a bacteria; I'll be impressed if it evolutionises into a human, or even just a monkey.
D & K Grace
D & K Grace 6 日 前
@Chaithanya Yes, we are all dumb when it comes to things we don't know. I put my faith in God, the creator who has given us a book to know Him. You put your faith in us coming from a rock. Talk about magic. Rom 1:20 KJV For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:21 KJV Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Rom 1:22 KJV Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Rom 1:23 KJV And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Rom 1:24 KJV Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Rom 1:25 KJV Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
D & K Grace
D & K Grace 6 日 前
​@Chaithanya I love true science. Science is great when done correctly and honestly. It's the lies and the made up fairytales (evolution) that is NOT science that I refute. Thanks for your comment, and I agree we cannot throw out true science b/c of the corruption and bias of the false scientists. Sadly every area of life has it's corruption, it's bias and ignorance.
Chaithanya
Chaithanya 7 日 前
@D & K Grace hey you can be religious and at the same time, accept science too. Its kind of embarassing when you people go about fighting facts in the name of proving that there is a God. God exists within you, in your heart, in your soul. Fighting science and facts is just making you look like a fanatic.
Hamma Lammadingdong
@D & K Grace - there is no mechanism in evolution that would allow a bacteria to stop being a bacteria. It’s a phylogenetic law. Read up on it.
D & K Grace
D & K Grace 17 日 前
@amp Just like you atheist's to insult someone when they disagree with your fairytale. Evolution is a religion based on faith not science.
Jeffery Perkins
Jeffery Perkins 19 日 前
Maybe the bacteria or adapting to their environment maybe it don't have anything to do with Evolution at all
Hamma Lammadingdong
Adaptation in populations is a product of evolution.
Luke Lawful
Luke Lawful 19 日 前
Evolution is garbage talk. The truth is adaptation
Optillian
Optillian 17 日 前
@Luke Lawful Well, fire can also cause combustion in other objects, so I think my analogy still works. :)
Luke Lawful
Luke Lawful 17 日 前
@Optillian Hang on wait, so now its the driving force of evolution is it? but your man above just said its a result of. I wish there was a laugh button. Your analogy is proof of nothing, just more nonsense
Optillian
Optillian 17 日 前
@Luke Lawful Adaptation is the primary driving force behind evolution. Saying "adaptation not evolution" is like saying "combustion not fire".
Luke Lawful
Luke Lawful 18 日 前
@Hamma Lammadingdong Well then prove it lol you or no one can so you can keep on theoreticizing all you like.. conditions create the opportunity for adaptation to occur by adapting to those specific circumstance/s, which is not some fanciful theory concocted by occultists like Darwin
Hamma Lammadingdong
@Luke Lawful - umm, no. Speciation has been directly observed. That’s evolution.
Lukas Eder
Lukas Eder 20 日 前
Seems like bacteria could be evolved into doing some chemical engineering task after a few years. Such as dissolving some poison, waste, or whatever?
Nikita Kucherov
Nikita Kucherov 20 日 前
Generation 1,000,000 - hi Im Thanos
Chris Muller
Chris Muller 20 日 前
Can anyone please tell my why everything is so casual in this video all while Zack has no damn gloves on while working on those samples. This man lives on the edge.
PurpleBubbles
PurpleBubbles 8 日 前
gloves should not be worn while operating a Bunsen burner, they could catch fire and seriously injure you.
Nova
Nova 17 日 前
Because it's e-coli lol
A Friend
A Friend 20 日 前
Still bacteria. Wake me when it becomes a bird.
Pokets
Pokets 20 日 前
"and here this bacteria has become a covid"
rubiks6
rubiks6 20 日 前
(00:30) "You're watching evolution in action." You may be watching evolution but you're not watching Darwinian evolution. These bacteria are still bacteria. They haven't grown fins or gills or in some way risen out of their container. You're watching adaptation which can never make these bacteria anything other than bacteria. "Evolution" has more than one meaning. The Creator of life is wise and has programmed adaptation into the creatures He made. There is no new information in the DNA of these bacteria. In order for Darwinian evolution to occur, a genome needs to acquire new information. Only someone who can write DNA code can create new DNA information.
infinitelyExplosive
@rubiks6 So then why did you say "There is no new information"? Regulation is information and there's a process that is now regulated differently, so clearly there's new information.
rubiks6
rubiks6 18 日 前
@infinitelyExplosive - Of course regulation is information. The code for processing citrate was there and it was regulated off. Then it was regulated on. Do you think when I flip a light switch to the "on" position I have reinvented the light switch?
infinitelyExplosive
@rubiks6 You think that regulation is not information? Seriously? You think that 'a' contains no information in this program: a=3 if (a>5) do x else do y At least try to make a reasonable argument.
rubiks6
rubiks6 19 日 前
@infinitelyExplosive - The bacteria _already had the genetic code_ to make the proteins to process citrate but that genetic pathway was blocked (down-regulated) because, in the real world, e. coli do not encounter much citrate. Producing the proteins to process citrate would waste valuable energy and resources. When the bacteria were continually exposed to citrate, the genetic path to processing citrate was opened (up-regulated) and the bacteria gained an advantage _in their_ *special* _environment._ If released into a natural environment, this strain of the bacteria would either shut down its citrate processing or simply be out-competed and die out. No new information was necessary or developed. This is no different than the idea that your liver cells have the DNA code to be heart muscle cells but that code is turned off and the liver cell code is turned on. Your nerve cells have the DNA code to be skin cells but that code is turned off and the nerve cell code is turned on. The e. coli have code to process citrate but it is normally turned off. No new code is needed. Just turning on the citrate processing code is needed. That's all.
infinitelyExplosive
@rubiks6 "There is no new information in the DNA of these bacteria" That's clearly false. The bacteria are aerobically consuming citrate, which they couldn't do before.
lordoftheweek
lordoftheweek 21 日 前
It would be interesting to know if all of the cultures got the ability to consume the second source and how long it took them all.
Felis Catus
Felis Catus 21 日 前
Curious to see when these e. coli Will evolve the ability to chew on glass and to stick to the plastic pipete to be selected more often for the next round…
Kakadu
Kakadu 21 日 前
potassium
Mark chaffee
Mark chaffee 22 日 前
Clicked on video to learn about the evolution of running, my poor brain.
D & K Grace
D & K Grace 22 日 前
This guy doesn't have a clue about what evolution is. besides being a fairy tale. He doesn't even know the fairytale.
infinitelyExplosive
@D & K Grace If only there were research papers on the origin of the circulatory system. maybe something with a DOI of 10.1111/jth.12253 Nah, using google scholar is too hard im just going to sit here and wallow in ignorance
Optillian
Optillian 15 日 前
@D & K Grace At this point, you're _trying_ to be stupid. I'm tired of trying to reason with you. Hopefully someone else can convince you. Goodbye and goodnight.
D & K Grace
D & K Grace 16 日 前
​@Optillian ​ @Optillian No proof? Just like the fairytale - no proof. My point is unless these two features of the body evolved at the exact same time they are worthless to each other and a human could not be produced. This is just a simple piece of creation that cannot be proven by evolution. But yet you can jump into much more complete features of the body and it's systems and write them off to time and chance. That is like an explosion in a junk yard producing a 727 jet with fuel flying at 30k feet and saying it could happen given enough time. Okay, I will make it easy for you. Take cow (see I'm giving you the advantage here, starting with material that already exists - unlike trying to evolve something from nothing) cut it into 20 pieces, now put it in a box and shake it. Tell me how many billions of years before this dissected cow becomes a whole, living, breathing cow again? That is the fairytale you believe. Dude, think it through. Picture how a rock could turn into person. Think, just think it through.
Optillian
Optillian 16 日 前
@D & K Grace I don’t know for certain, but I think it’s likelier that blood came first. Your point being?
D & K Grace
D & K Grace 16 日 前
@Optillian So much for the civil conversation. Yes, and we all die too. This was caused by sin, not God. Man was created to live eternal, without these flaws. Last question: Which evolved first: the blood or the vessels to hold the blood. Please prove with honest science.
Mark Zaikov
Mark Zaikov 22 日 前
What if it suddenly spikes, is that bad?
Picard + Discovery Fandom
His sad face when forced to shill for Bounty. 🤣
Mallory Myers
Mallory Myers 22 日 前
Just like tau-moeba 🚀 🧫
Morris Gevirtz
Morris Gevirtz 22 日 前
Hey Derek, great video.
Thomas Scoville
Thomas Scoville 23 日 前
the endless, eternal dance of life BROUGHT TO YOU BY BOUNTY PAPER PRODUCTS i just barfed in my mouth a little
watchcode
watchcode 25 日 前
God is one these scientist and we are just one of their evolution experiments.
tayzer_beamz
tayzer_beamz 25 日 前
Machine Learning could count those colonies a lot faster methinks.
Deputy Dog
Deputy Dog 19 日 前
😁@tayzer_beamz
tayzer_beamz
tayzer_beamz 20 日 前
@Deputy Dog 😆oops nvm
Deputy Dog
Deputy Dog 20 日 前
Are you trying to put interns out of a job?
Brian Hale
Brian Hale 25 日 前
Food disproves evolution: Change my mind.
DeathBySeaToast
DeathBySeaToast 23 日 前
@Brian Hale your argument makes the false assumption that complex contemporary life just spontaneously appeared out of no where like magic. No sane educated person will ever agree with you.
infinitelyExplosive
@Brian Hale lol okay have fun with your cult
Brian Hale
Brian Hale 25 日 前
@infinitelyExplosive How do you get to (h-e double L)? Very simple: claim uu rr innocent. How do you get to h34ven? Very simple: Admit that uu rr not Innocent, uu rr guilty and ask for mercy. How to know if uu rr guilty or not? Simply: Compare u life to the 9+1 Commandments G-0d gave you in the B1ble. Everyone agrees that if people followed the 9+1 commandments there would be no need for governments. Do not l-i-e. Do not st-eal. Do not commit ad- ult- er- y. Do not insult G0-d by using his name as a cu-ss word. There are six more but let's just leave it at that. How many lies have you told in this life? Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you? (J-word,) said, in the B1ble, if you look at a women lu-st-fully you've already committed ad- ult- er- y in your heart with that woman. How many times a day do you do that? Do you use G0-d's name as a cu-ss word? Would you do that with your own mother's name? Did uu answer these questions honestly? G0d can justly punish you and send you to (he-double L.) Ask him for mercy. His name is (the J-word).
infinitelyExplosive
@Brian Hale oof
Brian Hale
Brian Hale 25 日 前
@infinitelyExplosive it is I tried
Jmkap
Jmkap 25 日 前
5:23 42
Mariano Clerici
Mariano Clerici 25 日 前
This is extremely fascinating. Someone please keep this experiment going forever.
PenInABox 300
PenInABox 300 26 日 前
But when can i see them with tiny spears
Paritosh Mehta
Paritosh Mehta 27 日 前
42 hehe
Angela Richter
Angela Richter 27 日 前
I love to see other scientists of my generation still playing with E. coli. I was trying to make them productive members of society. I love this experiment. It's very informational for those researchers who are developing antibiotics and this should be shown to every idiot who doesn't take their full course as prescribed. Most microbiologists of my generation were obsessed with MRSA research.
01 Yash Alapuria
01 Yash Alapuria 27 日 前
I have a question, What will happen if we don't change the flask & the quantity of the liquid remains the same?
01 Yash Alapuria
01 Yash Alapuria 27 日 前
@Bilal Waheed Hmm… I think I’m getting it 😅👍👍
Bilal Waheed
Bilal Waheed 27 日 前
@01 Yash Alapuria Changing the flask is not necessary. The medium(mixture of chemicals on which the bacteria is grown) can be added periodically. Adding just water won't help them grow
01 Yash Alapuria
01 Yash Alapuria 27 日 前
@Bilal Waheed Oh, so changing flask is necessary… Hmm. Thanks a lot
Bilal Waheed
Bilal Waheed 27 日 前
@01 Yash Alapuria the bacteria will still stop growing after reaching the nutrient limit
01 Yash Alapuria
01 Yash Alapuria 27 日 前
@Bilal Waheed Oh, I see… Thanks 😊 & What if we add little water after fixed period of time until the flask is full?
The Voices Told Me To Again
Okay so we gotta test this e coli growth and see what it does in 42 days For science
The Voices Told Me To Again
Anyone else remember YT before ads? I miss it dearly.
Marco B
Marco B 27 日 前
Maybe some friends her want to consult genetecists who may explain them that the genome is running down fat and not up. Why evolutionists neither can see nor except this is a mystery to me. There must be even scientists who promote both in one day and dont realize the problem. Thats what dogma and faith can do to people - causing religious behaviour.
Marco B
Marco B 22 日 前
@infinitelyExplosive thats normal over the last decade. The ability of a human to see something else then what he and majority of society believes since early childhood abuse ( that's how Dawkins sees it....) Is almost not existent. There is no o surprise. See, people want to be smart. Smart means to believe mainstream. Most of the world believed and still believe in junk dna. You will not be effective. But i am not frustrated since it is not in my power to make people see that random mutation does not produce a software that does built a human and keeps it running for a life. Its not about arguments. See, if a human does actually believe that the tale of the peacock has evolved to perfection..... What can you do? There are adults who claim to believe that millions of hens sat in front of tales and did choose the most perfect pattern and the most beautiful colors. Not much one can do. If one has believed that it is fact that eagles evolved from fish over millions of years..... Thats fix.
Bilal Waheed
Bilal Waheed 22 日 前
@infinitelyExplosive he conveys his stupidity, pigheadedness and genereal idiocy more than anything else. And Marco, please be kind enough to look up what happens to humans with less than 46 chromosomes before you wrote another chapter
infinitelyExplosive
It is genuinely impressive how inefficient Marco is. I don't think I've ever seen anyone write so much and yet convey so little.
Marco B
Marco B 22 日 前
@Pootzeketzi123 Hi and good morning Pootzeketzi, good to see you interested in truth. I need to say that your post is missing the content. I understand your answer since that is what you have been programmed to answer. So you did not really have a choice doing different. Then you are doing a logical move. You think that you have understood the theory of evolution in a deeper way and I have not. You also need to assume that I am stupid since you believe that you with an average understanding did understand evolution while I obviously dont understand it because I don t seek this understanding. I can follow your chain of though which makes sense either IF you understand anything at all about evolution or you understand only parts and therefore you come tho the religious belief (thats mainly faith into the statements of others, the church .... in this case you will call it cultural pressure or society majority vote or cultural upbringing and so on, just per pressure....). But I cant follow your chain of thought if you truly gained a basic understanding of the theory of evolution - since, IF you understand the basics then you will not believe it is true. So the result of logic here is that you have not even a beginners understanding of evolution. Is this correct? You have neither read a real book about it pro nor against and your knowledge comes from mains stream media and a few youtube session. Does this come closer to the truth then your personal idea that you have a deeper understanding of how complex interdependent software evolves that makes a chicken out of liquid in 21 days without any signs of evolution at all? You see, you belong to a group pf people (church) with deep faith but few understanding. I would not be surprised if you even thing that natural selection is evolution or that speciation is evolution. In fact, if we would examine your faith then we would learn that you believe that devolution is evolution. See Pootzeketzi, people who actually do tr to deepening theory understanding of evolution dont tale a mouth full like you because they have learned that the theory has much flaw and does not work as it is today. I am still on the search for the theory that will describe how random mutation and coying errors can form a selectable trait. THAT is the CLAIM of evolutionists. If you can - with your deeeeep understanding and your smaaarrrtttneeess can explain this - you would be the first in history. So in order to get away from logic and reason and science and the so called theory (you will learn in the next few hours ((if you even try since you are religious to the core)) that you cant find it anywhere which will make you very angry and furious maybe, but I doubt you will even seek an understanding since you do know that evolution is as fact as gravity, right?) - lets have a simple example/question. By theory - how was the tale of the peacock perfected. (This is for evolutionary biologists with peeagedee and a bit below and double prof believers.) WHY cant you see evolution in any human around you every day? According to the theory it must be seen every where! >>> Thats for beginners and if you dont understand the question then the reason most probably is that you dont know much about the ToE. Your knowledge is around the idea that there is a good mutation and the natural selection tales care and voila over mullions of years we have eagle from fish. I cant see any positive mutation around me, only bad ones. And I dont see any evolution in progress..... ) I have to close, time is precious since I mam not in church of materialism..... See friend, IF evolution would be true then your body would need to be a complete mess! Its so easy. if you want! But you will not let go your religion. Chances that you may see are less then a JW may convert. Its a tuff programming since youth, difficult to fight. I wish you a good weekend and you may be out this cult on monday if you love logic, and reason, and science and most of all: TRUTH! thx for your time and a meaningful rant free logical response is welcome!
Pootzeketzi123
Pootzeketzi123 23 日 前
@Marco B Just because you are stupid and don't seek to gain a deeper understanding doesn't mean the theory is wrong. You just don't understand it, at all.
AnyWho
AnyWho 28 日 前
the theory is flawed a bit, whether or not you use antibiotics the strain is still going to evolve. just because it was never exposed to stronger antibiotics doesn't mean that it would have ended up with a whimper stain ...
Bilal Waheed
Bilal Waheed 27 日 前
There is only the exposure to antibiotics method of knowing if the whimper strain is present
movme
movme 29 日 前
Although SARS-CoV-2 is a virus, it works pretty much the same way: more cases of COVID-19 provide the virus with more opportunities to mutate and to evolve into new variants, some of which may pose a greater threat to us humans, either through the virus becoming more easily transmitted or more capable of causing severe symptoms and even death. This is why almost ALL of us need to do the right thing to help reduce the number of cases and thereby help reduce the possibility of the virus developing more threatening variants. Even if most of us do the right thing, it actually doesn't take very many people not doing the right thing to provide the virus with enough opportunities to spread and mutate and to possibly evolve to become a greater threat to all of us.
Zehir
Zehir 29 日 前
To the future generation who originated from this project and checking up your ancestors past, i was here! 👋
Dennis Perov
Dennis Perov 29 日 前
cockroach fitness? not sure.
zetty llanes
zetty llanes 29 日 前
i actually hope to meet you one day 😂like that’s just a dream
Paulann Wilson
Paulann Wilson 29 日 前
Maybe the "color marker" 9:10, caused the mutations.
Bilal Waheed
Bilal Waheed 27 日 前
They are just chemicals to make colour. They cannot cause mutations
Mark E.
Mark E. 29 日 前
Possible unintended mix/addition/unknown into experiment at lab....peoples breath? Tech has to remove and replace medium. Granted not huge amount but still the thought is interesting. Yet I am not a scientist.
Ramon de Torres
Ramon de Torres 29 日 前
That is NOT evolution, that is natural selection, which is that the bacterium has a gene, it survives and passes this on to its buddies the way bacteria do by sharing. And yet, the bacteria never becomes anything other than a bacterium.
amp
amp 18 日 前
@Ramon de Torres You see what you fail to understand is no one will believe you over the intellectual man in this video whos dedicated 30 years of his life for this study. All your comment does is make you look asinine.
infinitelyExplosive
@Ramon de Torres "bacteria change through natural selection" "bacteria don't evolve" These are mutually exclusive. Choose one.
Ramon de Torres
Ramon de Torres 27 日 前
@Bilal Waheed So, if people compete for resources with other people, new species are created? Bacteria change through natural selection and even through the exchange of packets of information, but they don't evolve, that is no new information is added through an accident. It is all purposeful, and these bacteria change through the inclusion of already existing genetic information.
Bilal Waheed
Bilal Waheed 27 日 前
If these bacteria could compete with other bacteria and the environment, different species will be created from them to survive the competition
infinitelyExplosive
"That's not a vehicle, it's a truck"
asdf
asdf ヶ月 前
So that's what is happening to the 1% of bacteria
Validity
Validity ヶ月 前
Evolution is a theory. After 33 years they are still E.coli and in 33 billion years they will still be bacteria.
Optillian
Optillian 17 日 前
A theory in science is an explonation for how things work. Is there a theory behind your sky wizard?
budd2nd
budd2nd ヶ月 前
You don’t seem to understand what evolution actually is. Using the most simplistic explanation, it is change. That’s is, just CHANGE. Did the species change their genetic code? Yes they did, therefore they have evolved. They have met the criteria to be considered a product of evolution. Here is another bacteria that has evolved. Ideonella Sakaiensis bacteria has evolved the ability to digest/eat PET plastic. Plastic was only invented by us in the 1950s, so in that time this bacteria have managed to produce the enzymes required to break down the plastic and digest it. Plus we must not forget that life has had 4.5 billion years to evolve. How many lifetimes is that? Trillions and trillions of bacterial ones. I’ll give you an analogy. You have just been shown a step, just one individual step. But you assert that, “yes that is a step, but a whole flight of steps or several flights of stairs require a designer/deity or is impossible ”. That is a massive logical fallacy. It is religious thinking 💭 and not how scientific enquiry operates.
Dave Hebel
Dave Hebel ヶ月 前
Reminds me of the spontaneous evolution of proteins and amino acids. Which one came first?
Bilal Waheed
Bilal Waheed 27 日 前
Amino Acids came first. These then reacted and made polymers we call proteins
Ezra Kirkpatrick
Ezra Kirkpatrick ヶ月 前
*So glad to see that the phenomena I predicted long ago holds true!* There is no limit to an organism's potential improvement because there is no limit to the time that such organism has to improve. Every system will always tend towards absolute & complete balance/stability. Yet infinite spacetime means infinite change and potential. Thus, there is infinite potential for organisms to change and improve.
Pavel
Pavel 20 日 前
There is no infinite time. Even the smallest environmental change can throw the balance off like it happened when cyanobacteria oxidized the atmosphere on the Earth. I think you mean the entropy, but the maximum entropy in the universe will happen once everything falls into black holes, that then evaporate. So there would be no matter just random radiation background ;)
bo bo
bo bo ヶ月 前
The non-sensical statements of these "Darwinian Evolution" proof assumptions are frankly laughable. In the simplest terms this is still a dish full of bacteria. Do these learned gentlemen presume to know that the possibility for such changes within the genetic code was not an inherent part of the code itself. It is admitted in the interview - take this bit from here and that bit from there and you potentially get this outcome. This is merely discovering slightly different capabilities without understanding in any meaningful way the complexity of the code from which it came. DNA is much more complex than any man-made complex system. No human has mastered it as far as any of us are aware, so these theories stated here are merely projections, nothing more. Its interesting that Darwin wrote a book on claiming to prove "origin(s)" when his book does nothing of the sort. Even in this experiment they start with existing bacteria - lets see someone invent a life form from inert material before we go all - "this proves Darwin correct." Universe sized ladles of organic soup cannot save the theory. SS Darwin has already sunk. Decades of experiments failed to produce one single living thing and now Lenski would have us believe that his suppositions have fared any better than those in explaining anything of real significance. Even our dear friend Mr Dawkins bluffed his way through the process of a cell acquiring a membrane, claiming "It must somehow have happened" without offering any proof as to how it happened and fitted into his "belief" in evolution. While I enjoy this channel for the science - I'm disappointed with these nods to a dead theory that was disproven years ago on multiple levels. The fossil record does not line up with evolution - The stratums are records of species that shows the sudden emergence of new organisms, followed by stasis for millions of years (i.e., without evolutionary changes) and then their sudden extinctions, or continuance without major change over time. Again in simple terms this is a lab experiment of bacteria becoming slightly different bacteria - its still bacteria. No amount of philosophizing about what it may or could become can change that. To suggest any different is just bad science.
budd2nd
budd2nd 14 日 前
@Sumak Dubenski What “insignificant step” are you referring to? As for “believing the science”, the scientific method requires evidence and proof, for each single, individual step. Before it is excepted as true. So yes there is shed loads of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. And even more importantly, absolutely no evidence that debunks evolution. Religious zealots have been trying to find some for nearly 200 years, but have failed miserably.
Sumak Dubenski
Sumak Dubenski 14 日 前
@budd2nd And based on that insignificant step, you extrapolate that 4.5 Bil yrs was enough to form super-complex organisms like humans? Based on what? Do you have a scientific proof, or you just "believe the science"?
bo bo
bo bo 29 日 前
@budd2nd "ignored EVIDENCE" The epitaph of another fallen evolution backer. Evidence for evolution is MIA presumed dead - Prince Charles Dars awaits to welcome it into non-existence (snuggles)...
budd2nd
budd2nd ヶ月 前
@bo bo I’m not wasting any more time on your trainee apologist gish gallop, through an endless word salad, and ignored EVIDENCE. It’s too boring trying (and failing) to force your eyes open. So good luck and goodbye 👋
bo bo
bo bo ヶ月 前
@budd2nd The point that you completely missed is that evolution has never been called Darwinism, by anyone BUT religious zealots. In a pathetic attempt to make it seem like a religion aka Catholicism, Creationism, Mormonism etc. But within the normal world, it has always been called EVOLUTION. If evolutionists are upset about terminologies, that's their problem. Darwin was the daddy of this flawed movement so it seems a fitting reference to have his name painted on the bell of the sinking/ sunk ship. Darwinism/ evolution, no matter - works of fiction not fact. The burden of proof is on it to prove itself true or not, and it does not. You seem upset - maybe its because I pointed out using your own words that you disagreed with Prof. Lenski. Such mental confusion and contradiction amongst evolutionists as displayed above in text is common. An ever present, just under the surface trip wire, ready to upend the instigator if they say too much. A definition for religion: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. I'm guessing the religious definition above was what lead to historical falsifications of archaeological and biological "evidence" of which there are numerous well documented examples. Such bias is similarly reflected in present enquiry. How embarrassing for evolutionists to have strata recently unearthed in the same village with vastly different skulls that would otherwise no doubt have been carbon dated via peer pressure to conform to the religion of evolution and its timeline. Such were the reports in mainstream news and scientific media. There seems to be a little confusion in the "new evolution" agenda being pushed here. Evolution has to work backwords as well as forwards. No evolutionist has been able to successfully defend the past record. It does not lie within their power to do so, because the actual physical evidence is against this dead theory. Joke - How do you get Richard Dawkins to leave the room quickly - Ask him for his best proof of evolution through natural selection. (he has no credible answer) Carbon and other dating systems have long been abused with wildly varying results depending on the condition of the bones and simply if vegetation for example was in the dig site. "Lets have this time period on this particular set of bones please!" - rummages through the vast variety of dating results - "There you go sir!" Its not as if this information is hard to acquire - any college teacher will tell you. But even these monumental efforts to make this laughable theory viable did not, cannot and will not do so. The vast swathe of transitional species Darwin hoped we'd find simply do not exist. @ budd2nd "Evolution is just the explanation of how adaptation works" How many attempts to repackage this word and theory will be made? If evolution is as loosely described this way as previously posted, then the overuse of this word may lose any small amounts of credibility it may have left. Some principles or models loosely tied to the now seemingly all-encompassing word "evolution" maybe be useful in predictions going forward. A different descriptor word used to identify such models would likely serve the same purpose - but I get it - you don't care right? A growing number of scientists and others are freeing themselves from the religion of evolution. About time! No such untestable indemonstrable theory should ever have been accepted by honest intelligent humans. I'm glad that we have established - Darwinian Evolution is Dead. At least that's progress. Well done! Onward.... @ budd2nd "Now I’m not a geneticist but I had read a fair bit about it. And I can tell you that when someone like Francis Collins says that we are related to and have evolved alongside the rest of the organisms on Earth. They have many different ways to back up that statement." This statement is just plain arrogant. Many profs. reviewing the exact same data come to different conclusions. This type of "my way or the highway" thinking is not productive. Its, how did you put it "a logical fallacy." A more valid question might be - why do these learned men come to different conclusions. The answer is obvious - it depends on the belief systems of the person examining the evidence. A person who's hooked on unproven, flawed and decimated evolution, through schooling, reinforcement or other will bring those sets of beliefs to the table and seek to explain the evidence from that mind set. In a room full of colleagues who may for one reason or another "believe" the same would surely further compound the effect. @ budd2nd "In fact this video has links (in the description box) to some of the well researched and externally validated scientific papers." Have these folks also bought into evolution as a thing - do they still believe in your now discarded belief in Darwinian evolution. Did or do they accept the punctuated equilibrium as fact, not just an add on or rework of a dead theory for which there is zero creditable historical evidence. Do they believe in this new rework of evolution as described by you going forward? How independent are these verifiers of an evolutionary "tale." Peer pressure is a real thing - if you have any scientific background then you must surely be aware of it - even silently. I reject evolution for the simple reason that it is not and cannot be proven and is contradictory to available evidence. I guess for those who have embraced evolution any potential pressure from their peers would be viewed as a boon - a comfortable place to hang out in with old friends. Just because a lot of people believe a fallacy does not suddenly make if viable. @ budd2nd "You then went on about the genetic similarities amongst living things. These include lots of broken poorly constructed or just useless bits of code which are constantly passed on from generation to generation. And if they are ultimately because of your deity, then he is a useless designer and a very shoddy worker." The above strays into the realms of religious beliefs. Its clear there has been some careless reading of my previous posts. I will ignore this failed attempt at a religious debate. Asterix's for the benefit of the reader... posted earlier : "As for personal takes on the genetic code and its shared similarities amongst living things, ***if scientific reasoning concluded that there was an intelligent "cause"*** behind mechanisms like it and ultimately the beginnings of the cosmos then would such intelligence after creating such a code not be at will to use selective parts of it in the manufacture of things "suddenly appearing" ***as indicated in the fossil record*** , seemingly out of nowhere. ***The acceptance or investigation into whether such an intelligent cause is plausible or not in light of available evidence is scientific in its nature.*** ***What form that intelligent cause may or may not be in, is were religion would enter, and again I have no intention of debating you on this non scientific subject.*** There are schools of investigation that can be applied to such a search outside of realm of science." Many who believe in intelligent cause do not have a belief in a "deity" as you put it. They have concluded through examination of the evidence in their particular field that some sort of intelligence birthed the intelligence we see in all sorts of systems in the universe. Cosmology, physics (perhaps your subject) and others have definite laws - they are prolific. So the choices when it comes to fundamentals are ***cause or no-cause.*** Any scientist who completely cuts out even the possibility of one of these 2 options has just halved his objectivity, although that's what we see time and time again in polluted biased scientific circles. Much if not all the evidence of science can be attributed to intelligent cause - not so with no-cause. Even recently the abject failure of an American experiment to find sterile neutrinos is hailed as "Neutrino result heralds new chapter in physics" in one news report. "The standard model just got another beating - lets look somewhere else and find the answers we seek in another multimillion dollar experiment for a no-cause universe" could be a likely response. While physics work (kind of) in explaining things there are colossal holes in it. Many physicists and cosmologists complain of a "dilemma in science." That's what happens when you approach enquiry from an "I'm participating in one possible outcome and not the other" kind of mentality. It is further compounded by holding onto failed theories as a sucky blanket rather than discarding them for the worthless trash they are. Setting out on research with a no-cause approach and failing to entertain cause as a possibility is like a rock climber trying to get up that mountain with one hand behind his back - possible but not plausible.
Ivan's Business Marketing Strategies
That isn't Evolution, though. Other studies have proven that over time there is only a loss of information, not a gain. What we are seeing, here, is a small percentage of generations that are passing-down more original samples of what has been proven to be progressively deteriorating genetics. I've seen studies that discuss complete genetic failure within about 100k generations of reproduction, without any harsh conditions or outside inhibitor. So, what we're looking-at, here, is a narrative attached to a scientific experiment, which does not honestly explain what is happening.
infinitelyExplosive
Duplications are not necessarily a loss of information. That is completely false. Regardless of information, this also definitely is evolution. There are clearly changes in heritable characteristics over generations.
Jack Tao
Jack Tao ヶ月 前
Prof. Lenski sounds like Steve Jobs.
How to Slow Aging (and even reverse it)
21:10
A Physics Prof Bet Me $10,000 I'm Wrong
17:56
These are the asteroids to worry about
20:06
The Genius of 3D Printed Rockets
19:58
再生回数 7 000 000
Do Salt Lamps Work?
16:31
再生回数 5 000 000