Natural selection and competitive selection is also just a imaginative hypothesis not proved yet.
This experiment support adaptation within same species. Not evolution. Can scientists evolve this bacteria into multi-cellular organism? That will be wonderful. No-one can do that. Darwin theory is just an observation. A hypothesis.
Wait, so if I get the ending there. Life shows a capacity to transcend entropy?
When did Adam Ragusea start doin science content ?
According to the evolution theory they were supposed to develop into a multicellular organism or something. And this is what we do not see.
"According to the evolution theory they were supposed to develop into a multicellular organism or something." So you're saying you don't know anything about evolutionary theory? Fun.
Veritasium FAKE for money: big experiment setup to pitch paper towels - microprint disclamer in the end says that experiment is "not representative". Not the the sort of statistical significance that I've grown used to wrt this channel. Oh, and you should always use recycled material or wash. There's always room for a couple kitchen cloths in the washer.
I'm really concerned about how they handle bacteria... No gloves, just a slight "Touch" in the fire and "importante" the material and bacteria are being exposed to Open air...
It's all well and good until the germs can transfer through xenonite
1st gen e coli: we cant eat that its deadly! 1000000+ gen e coli: u wut m8?!
Crematoriums are for organisms that are already dead... Those furnaces look more like something found at Dachau
*how to create a supervirus*
This is a highly controlled environment. Compare the competitive advantage of the newest and oldest colonies in a natural world where innumerable other factors weigh in to survival. It may very well be that the older organisms are better able to survive. This is analogous to selective breeding that creates an animal with desired characteristics but is otherwise less capable of overall survival compared to its ancestors. I'm afraid this teaches me nothing.
"I'm afraid this teaches me nothing." Says more about you than the experiment, I think.
Did anyone else notice the reference from the movie “The 13th Warrior” on the fridge? Timestamp 7:50 minute
YES! Nothing out is not in and everything out is in ;-)) 1.5 (oo.000) is human program given by life = love = what you are in need of, who (do you) are (you)? I took my ABO once more!
Queen Elizabeth I (of England) cooked a fruitcake for members of parliament to celebrate its opening. A bit was saved to be included in the next parliament's opening, etc. So now, when parliament begins its new season, the members are privileged to have a bit of cake cooked by Shakespeare's favorite monarch! [i have not fact-checked this because i don't want to find out if it is not true]
Mad scientist fell into bacteria gacha hell...
Is he referring to Confirmation Bias or is it something else?
This episode was great! Really interesting.
disappoinited that derek is now hawking that idea that greater bacterial spread is somehow dirtier, and that you should use disposible environment wrecking paper over washable cloths.
Imagine being the chad bacteria to first eat the citrate
42, ¿coincidence? I think not
Prof Richard Lenski has the same accent as Rich Evans and it's throwing me off.
Me seeing 1% selection first hand: "So that's what the aliens are doing to our universe and what the Great Filter could be."
Context: imagine that at 7:30 he's talking about intergalactic species expanding across the universe.
The educated dumbasses still call it evolution. After 70000+ generations the bacteria is still producing bacteria. The bacteria has not produced anything but bacteria. Why is it so hard to get un biased conclusions? The only thing that has been observed is ADAPTATION not evolution.
"The educated dumbasses still call it evolution" Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations, which this definitely is. "The bacteria has not produced anything but bacteria" If they produced something other than bacteria, it would disprove evolution. You understand that, right?
Nah, if the flask breaks we become the solution to the experiment.
It’s called mutation or adaptation. NOT EVOLUTION! The bacteria will always remain bacteria, just more resistant.
Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations, which this definitely is.
IT'S GOD! LOL
I am forever grateful to Dr IGUDIA on CSbuild who cured me from herpes with his herbal medication, you are so real and trusted.
Beautiful video. Biosciences are a rich hunting ground for new videos.
So...when do they turn into monkeys??? Can monkeys evolve into bacteria???
"So...when do they turn into monkeys" Based on evolutionary science, never. If you think evolution suggests otherwise, you don't understand evolution.
well don't judge the Qu when they do this to us :^)
I see you evolving from young youtuber :D
A million bacterial monkeys typing on a million bacterial type-writers.... One of them finally wrote the opening to hamlet
13:48 A couple more generations and they’ll be growing eyes and noses.
Then someone breaks the glass.
I'll bet you I can make a dog "evolve" so that it will CRAVE something that canines would NEVER consume if left to their own tastes(sp?)...
Are tests like this being done on viruses?
So what you are saying is, after 75,000 generations, it's just better bacteria, but in the same amount of generations we went from monkey to man? Why didn't it macro evolve?
@Crispr CAS9 fair enough! I am still seeing no evidence of macro evolution, but that timeline sure makes it look like more of a possibility. My timeline was clearly off
@FuriousGeezer "it's a long time from bacteria to monkey" Monkeys are not descended from bacteria. "We get what a billion or so years?" 3.5 billion from first life to complex life, another 100 million to get on land, another 150 million for mammals, another 100 million for primates, another 50 for humans. Approximately.
@Crispr CAS9 Both are human though, yes. I poorly worded it.
@Crispr CAS9 it's a long time from bacteria to monkey and again to man. Not sure there is time for that🤷🏼♂️. We get what a billion or so years?
In the same number of generations, our ancestors went from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens. Both of those are humans.
so how long til one of the containers crawls off? :P
using the same needle for different flask samples???!!
The human scale equivalent of this would be alien abduction encounters, where aliens continuously sample humans as they observe our evolution.
Shouldn't forget all the generations of students who evolved the professor's knowledge and status! 🧐
Wait. She wasn’t wearing gloves. Am I missing something?
Ok thats stretch of a comparison. The mutations of a one cell bacterium are quite different than the mutations that would have to occur for an ape like creature to transform into what man is today. I don't care how many million years you tack on to it.
@Crispr CAS9 definition of a species is the ability to reproduce viable offspring, while a human definition which all things pertaining Evolution are, I think you would agree it's a very good definition considering if you can't reproduce you can't propagate your own kind. Mules for example are not a species because they cannot reproduce. They are a hybrid cross and are sterile. I would argue there is proof in science or rahter evidence if you want to call that, otherwise why push forward research when you can't prove anything. Novel organs do have tissues and nerves which are co-opted in other ways not pertaining to those organs, but this is deductive reasoning to assume that because they exist in othwr forms does not mean they can be organized randomly through mutation in a way to create vision. Your last part is what is hard for me to wrap my brain around, so if a random, neutral, mutation becomes important as the conditions surrounding the organizism changes how do we know it's random. Could it not be hormonal? or that the organism sensing something is changing in the environment and so chemical reactions in the brain induce changes in that organisms features to adapt to new environments. I don't know if that's even a thing. But it's intriguing.
@Gary CLark "Do mutations cause evolution." This is poorly phrased. Mutations *are* evolution (for bacteria, at least), in the strict sense, as they are changes in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations. They can also cause selection, another mechanism of evolution. "We have proof " There is never proof in science. " but we have zero accounts that I am aware of on one species evolving into another." This is also poorly phrased. Species are human labels, populations become different species when humans decide they are. But evolution can result in an accumulation of differences between two populations, or between one population and its ancestral population, such that humans are likely to determine them to be different species. "What evidence do we have that mutations for example created an eye or a wing?" Eyes are pigments and nerves in a particular arrangement. Both the pigments and the nerves are useful without vision, and can be co-opted into a visual system. Wings are just weird limbs. Neither eyes nor wings require, per se, novel proteins, only novel regulation. And we have plenty of evidence of mutation generating novel regulation. "Its quite another for a complex organism to evolve into an even more complex organism." I agree in part. Initial increases in complexity would be contingent and unlikely, but that is actually consistent with the history of life on earth, with the first 3.5 billion years of evolution producing very little in the way of increased complexity. However, past this initial step, most differences between organisms are regulatory novelty, not protein novelty. "Most mutations are neutral, bad ones are rooted out and, good mutations rarely make it to the next generation." Yes but, yes, and no. Good mutations frequently make it to the next generation, but more importantly most neutral mutations are only neutral in the current context of the organism. A mutation causing slightly thicker hair in an animal in a temperate climate would be neutral (adaptive in the winter, deleterious in the summer). But if the climate changes, or the population expands to different climates, then that initially neutral variant is suddenly non-neutral. This type of contingent selection on previously neutral variation is extremely important in morphological evolution.
@Crispr CAS9 I guess for me it boils down to mutations. Do mutations cause evolution. Is there any other mechanism that brings about evolution. We have proof of inherent changes among species that help them to become more suitable in their environment, but we have zero accounts that I am aware of on one species evolving into another. What evidence do we have that mutations for example created an eye or a wing? Changed a flipper to an arm. It is one thing for a bacteria or a virus to change the way it defends itself. Its quite another for a complex organism to evolve into an even more complex organism. Most mutations are neutral, bad ones are rooted out and, good mutations rarely make it to the next generation. I believe that mutations can and do add value and variety to individual species, but I see no evidence of mutations evolving from one species to another. I guess that's my point, it all seems mute if there is no smoking gun, they have been searching for it for 150 years, yet no evidence. What bugs me the most is how religious scientists have become on the subject of evolution. They accuse creationists of only relying on faith yet much if what they proport to believe as true has about as much evidence. I don't understand the us against them mentally that has cropped up in science lately,(or has it always been the case) the same with climate change, this pandemic. It feels like science is being exploited for political gain. It's losing it purity.
@Gary CLark "Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form." Let's say that was completely true for every group. How would it be relevant to anything in my prior comments, specifically? Does it provide a metric for 'flourishing'? Does is it address the greater fitness of chimpanzees in their environment? The nature of scientific theories and laws? No to all. Nor does it present a mechanism for 'crafting' organisms. Does it support any of your later statements that do address some of these? No again. So why bring it up? Most groups don't fit that pattern, by the way. "Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record" First, same initial commentary as above. Anyway: If you mean in the Cambrian, then that is partially true, although we are starting to find some organisms from the Ediacaran. That's still enough to show the evolution of all vertebrates, for instance. " fully formed" We never expect to find any 'half-formed' organisms, that's not how evolution works. "and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group." This isn't a problem for human evolution. The fossil record is fairly extensive. "This pattern is contrary to what would be expected from Darwinian evolution." Darwinian evolution only makes predictions on what should be found in the fossil record in the sense of predicting the chronological order of specimens that might be found, not what should be found in the actual rocks. For instance, if an initial radiation occurs rapidly in a small population, especially for small and soft bodied animals, it is unlikely that we would find many fossils at all. But if we DID find some, then they should occur in a particular pattern. Failure to find the Ediacaran soft-bodied ancestors of vertebrates, for instance, is neither consistent with nor contrary to evolution. Finding a rabbit mixed in with the Ediacaran would definitely be contrary to evolution. "Genetics has punched more holes in it lately." Genetics provided a stronger support for evolution than any single field has ever provided to any single theory in the history of science. "and not to rely on random chance mutations to explain" Mutation is a known process that can do what needs to be explained. That certainly doesn't mean it is impossible for some other process to be involved, but until it is presented, mutation will continue to be the best explanation currently available. "I am however enjoying this conversation." I've talked to a few people under this video, you've been the best so far.
@Crispr CAS9 my reasoning for specific placements of species is as follows: Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group. This pattern is contrary to what would be expected from Darwinian evolution. Your partially right about laws and theories. I don't think one is better than the other, theories are more complex and less quantifiable. Going into the whys and hows. scientific law predicts the results of certain initial conditions. I think that evolution is as well established in proof and data as it should be considering it's been around for about 150 years. Genetics has punched more holes in it lately. I think we need more information from all kinds of sources, and not to rely on random chance mutations to explain the propagation of species on the whole planet without stepwise fossil records. I am however enjoying this conversation. It's been helpful to me to continue to formulate my ideas about how things came to be, so thank you.
Still waiting. When did bacteria have gain in function/information and become a dog? Nowhere in the world does that occur. Besides all fossils having soft cell tissues in them is clear and abundant evidence evolution does not occur. There are not enough trillions and quadrillions of years for "mutations" required to have gained in function as soft cell tissues have how long a life? Your experiment does nothing but proves the existence of a "pre-programmed will to survive" or immunity as your body posses. Mankind did not evolve from apes or will they evolve into something other than humans. Transitional fossils? Where?
@Chris M "That is the events evolution proposes." No, it isn't.
@Crispr CAS9 That is the events evolution proposes.
"When did bacteria [...] become a dog?" If bacteria became dogs, that would disprove evolution. You understand that, right?
Isn't it possible to try and make bacteria evolve into eating stuff we treat as garbage ? Like idk all the "bad" gases etc. Could solve a lot of problems
I hate to mention this, but unless you are composting your paper towels, use re-usable microfiber cloths that you can throw in the washer. I use them occasionally, but rarely for cleaning.
12:31 ... I 100% read Gattaca haha
The lucky 1% gets to reproduce..... like the super rich haha
Space itself is the thing that is evolving. All the matter, energy and radiation that exists in the universe at one time fit into something the size of a soccer ball or perhaps a football stadium. It all came from space. It is all here to benefit space. Space would not be as expansive as it is without the matter and energy it created in less than one second.
I could sit down and talk with that guy for days lol. Very interesting and informative. If I could meet him I'd have to thank him for his work
The best example of this kind of research is a really old story by the author of 'Game of Thrones' George R.R Martin. It's one of his best. It's a short story called 'Sandkings'. There is the book on youtube. Also the outerlimits video also on youtube. Sorry I can't put up links you'll have to search youtube. Very scary one to read. I suspect you will like it. muhahaha
When the music kicked in I got a wave of nostalgia. I saw your source, but what it reminded me of was the Majora's Mask Milk Bar Theme. The most simultaneously upbeat and sorrowful music I can think of right now. Only the first 5 or so notes of your music matched the Theme, but it was enough to spark my memory.
that transfer process was suprisingly lax! :o i would’ve thought you’d want to do this under suction cabinet with purified atmosphere and such.
“33 years ago, even on weekends ever since ..” Bacteria are annoyingly hard workers.
Perhaps this is adaptability? Quiet possible that bacteria have different (higher) adaptability potential then higher animals?. The bacteria still remained "bacteria" at the end, even after 30 years relentless "experimentation", and did no really "evolve" into a new species? Am I missing something?
This is a great experiment in micro evolution and also acts as an experiment in macro evolution as well, if macro evolution were possible there would be signs after 70k generations but, that is not the case. No matter how resilient or mutated these samples are they are still E. coli bacteria and not E. coli/??? Or something completely different.
stove, etc. It's WAY too wasteful to use paper towels! SHAME on you, for promoting such wastefulness!!
So this is what Chase is doing these days. Decided he liked the red-head look, too.
Evolution really isn't true devolution or decay is much more realistic
Where are the damn gloves?
This video was amazing. I was hooked from the beginning.
bounty blew my mind
It seems dangerous to me learning bacteria to survive antibiotics
This is a perfect plot for a disaster movie
why 42 though?
This is the great experiment Richard Dawkins describes in his book _The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution_!
As far as I understand the environment in this experiment is strictly controlled with constant and optimal temperature and nutritional content. There are no other species present. E.coli to grow faster in such an environment is most likely explained by the fact that these bacteria evolve to spend less energy and time to adapt to different temperatures, nutritional shortages (ex. storing carbohydrates), and competing with other species, allowing them to concentrate all metabolic activity on growth and reproduction. Thus, the "constant improvement" proposed by the researcher is questionable. This is probably not an improvement, it is only an action of increasing the activity of only one vital metabolic function (growth by using glucose) at the expense of others (adaptation to temperature, nutritional shortage, competition, etc.).
@Ezgi Umut "My comment is not a claim" Yes it is. You claimed that something was the most likely explanation, you must support this. You've also made a collection of claims in your new comment, and provided support for none of them. You're just making stuff up, no one cares.
@Crispr CAS9 My comment is not a claim, rather a necessary discussion before accepting that this experiment provides evidence to "continuous improvement" in a stable environment. I consider that it should be called continuous adaptation to the experiment's growth medium. The first generation E.coli of this experiment comes from the real world where it spent significant energy to preserve membrane potential to the changing electrolyte concentrations of its habitat, to adapt to temperature changes and nutritional content as well as producing multiple enzymes to produce energy from many non-glucose substrates. The hospitable and stable environment provided in this experiment is expected to result in selective atrophy of the aforementioned metabolic features of the bacterium that it gained to survive harsh living conditions; allowing more energy to be spent on growth and reproduction rather than metabolic defensive buffers, competition, etc. The researcher has to disprove this interpretation before concluding that continuous improvement takes place even in stable conditions. These bacteria are still adapting to this new friendly habitat (no fluctuations in sodium, phosphate, potassium, magnesium, citrate, ammonium concentrations, temperature, nutrition ) even if it has been going on for 30 years (which is not a long time) especially considering that it is markedly different from what the bacteria have evolved in millions of years. The atrophy of previously essential functions with environmental change has been described in many species even in vertebrates in Galapagos.
@Ezgi Umut " It is more likely that the outcome (growth rate) is better not because of progress, but rather from the atrophy of other metabolic functions that are necessary for life in the real world" This is your claim, present your evidence to support it.
@Crispr CAS9 the ability to grow without glucose (ex. metabolizing citrate) is a different discussion that takes place during the video. However, the main topic of interest that the researcher emphasizes at the conclusion is the constant improvement of the growth rate which concerns the bacteria incubated at the standard DM25 liquid medium (10% glucose). It is more likely that the outcome (growth rate) is better not because of progress, but rather from the atrophy of other metabolic functions that are necessary for life in the real world, that have become obsolete in this experiment method.
"it is only an action of increasing the activity of only one vital metabolic function (growth by using glucose)" The interesting finding is that are able to grow in the complete absence of glucose. Are you sure you watched the video?
I'm put in mind of 'The Outer Limits' episode 'Wolf 359'.
This reminds me of Primer
Evolution is Adaptation Adaptability
i just love the hippie labcoat at 11.50 :-) ....sadly not gonna happen in my lab :-(
Paper towels? Um, NO. Dish cloths, hand towels, sponges, all can be - get this - *WASHED* to sanitize them. No need, at ALL, to waste trees in order to wipe down the counter, stove, etc. It's WAY too wasteful to use paper towels! _SHAME on you,_ for promoting such wastefulness!!
Damn, the ThermoFisher ad was awesome. Don't know what it was but the music and video were very satisfying:)
No we're not viewing evolution as it happens. You are describing 'minor evolution' which is an adaptation to environment. It's still the same bug. It hasn't turned into another kind of bacteria. And the corn is still corn. Major evolution would result in a different bacterium or a different plant. I wish you evolutionists would stop lying to us. Stop using the smoke screen of minor evolution to prove that major evolution is a fact.
@Fred Bach "That was a library addition using Crisper " I don't know which experiment you're talking about, but it isn't any of the ones featured in this video. "Let me know when it turns into something that is not an E-coli." 'E coli' is a species designation, and species designations are human labels for human abstractions of populations. A sub population of E coli is no longer E coli when humans decide it, and by the ecotype conception of species delimitation the Ara-3 strain is already a new species. "Does the citrate ability come via the Rogues' Gallery or from elsewhere in the genome?" The citrate ability comes from a novel mutation, as confirmed by genomic sequencing of the ancestral and descendant strains. " If the latter, what will happen if you took the citrate away for 75000 generations? Might it lose its ability to handle citrate? " Sounds like you just suggested it can't be evolution if *more* evolution happens afterwards. I hope that isn't what you intended, since that would be silly.
@Crispr CAS9 the bugs were given a Rogues gallery of what compounds to be immune to. For instance the square carbon ring in penicillin family drugs. That was a library addition using Crisper.... rather than a genetic mutation. Your username comes from that process. It's still an E-coli with a bigger library and a genetic variation. This ability is given to most lifeforms. Let me know when it turns into something that is not an E-coli. Does the citrate ability come via the Rogues' Gallery or from elsewhere in the genome? If the latter, what will happen if you took the citrate away for 75000 generations? Might it lose its ability to handle citrate? This reminds me of the moths in England that turned from a light shade to a dark shade and back to light again when the air pollution was cleaned up. I know you will attribute that to preditors. You actually need to do the other half of the experiment and put the new bug in an old environment for 75000 generations and see what it gains and loses.
lots of small changes eventually make large changes...
"No we're not viewing evolution as it happens." Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over successive generations, which this definitely is. "It's still the same bug." It isn't the same, the descendant can use citrate as a sole carbon source, which the ancestor could not. They have identified the mutations responsible, which were not present in the ancestor. It is demonstrably different. "It hasn't turned into another kind of bacteria. " 'Kind' is a nonsense word without any scientific validity. "Major evolution would result in a different bacterium" Then mission accomplished, as explained above. "or a different plant." If any of the descendants of bacteria were plants, that would disprove evolution. Asking as evidence for a thing something that would actually disprove that thing is a fairly clear indication you don't understand the subject in the first place.
And in 30 more years (equivalent to 3 million years from the start), still nothing cool happened. Yawn.
Time for flask beer pong?
when you touch the elbow for said hi don't keep social distance needed for prevent covid
New Hollywood movie plot, Planet of the Bacteria.
So, as opposed to a Grey Goo scenario (Out of control Nano-Bot Replicators), this would be a Green Goo scenario?
So "life finds a way" even if it doesn't need to?
Imagine if we are just an experiment inside an alien race flask, and we die because otherwise the experiment would become unmanageable.
That was interesting.
33 years and it’s still bacteria.
Just as evolution predicts.
Everyone gangsta until bacteria evolve to have collective consciousness
millennia of “hominid” evolution? So how long did it take to get to “hominid” again? Would you mind taking me through that process, even theoretically, step by step? I’m very
Tell me when the bacteria becomes a fish🤫
@Mohammad Hasanain "ok so you flipped to racism" Excuse me? That's a substantial accusation. Either support it or retract it. " I am a native speaker" Then the educational system has failed you. "and you judge me by my name" I judged you by your obvious inability to communicate in English. I had given you the benefit of the doubt that you were able to at least communicate in some other language. If you claim you're just incoherent generally, I'll take your word for it. When you've learned how words work and what a reasonable number of them mean, feel free to revisit this conversation and try again.
@Crispr CAS9 ok so you flipped to racism what would you do if I was in your county just god knows. All the things you talked about are things I can feel their influence but I can't feel the influence of the precious evolution. write what ever you want now, I will not answer you because I am a native speaker and you judge me by my name "science guy"
@Mohammad Hasanain "it's clear that you don't understand what am I saying" Given the fact that I am a native speaker of the language we're using, and I'm guessing you are not, I'd say that it is *much* more likely the problem is that *you* don't understand what I am saying. "so just answer this question, when was there any proof and I mean proof on evolution" Same time as there was proof of gravity: Never. There is no proof in science. If you deny evolution because there is no 'proof' then you must also deny gravity, electricity, the existence of microbes, and the reality of your own mind. Because you can't 'prove' any of them.
@Crispr CAS9 it's clear that you don't understand what am I saying or don't want to so just answer this question, when was there any proof and I mean proof on evolution and something transforming to something else like an ape or fish caroling out of the see 🤷🏽♂️
@Mohammad Hasanain "so science doesn't work on proof is that correct?" Yes. "If it is you're talking about a new science you invented" No. "and if you said "observed " an observation is enough proof for such a thing" An observation isn't proof. It is a data point that increases confidence. "where was it observed can you tell me?" PMC3277146 & PMC4380822, and others. "What I meant when I talked about the experiment was that it didn't happen in this experiment while it was this long, when can it happen?" Here's your logic, spot the error: "I just flipped a coin 5 times and didn't roll a six, therefore rolling a six with a fair die is impossible!" "So if I told you that I'm confident the moon is made of cheese" I'd be curious as to what statistical analysis you based that on, but strongly suspect you just didn't understand what I mean by 'confidence'. I'm using a statistical definition, not a common one.
Love the turbulent flow Tshirt. LOL. This little feud is hilarious and I'm here for it.
Generation 69,000: E. Coli have spelled out the words, “Let us out.”
I would love to sit in the lectures of this professor. It is so pleasant to hear him explain!
Lol, evolution isn’t real. There settled
lol, nobody of any relevance cares about your opinion.
Let's hope those bacterium are not harmful to life around them when they escape. I'm not qualified to know whether they represent a danger or not but I do know that no containment protocols are 100% guaranteed, never can be.
i feel as if they wont survive well in the wild considering they're evolving in extremely favourable conditions for them
What kind of idiots want to breed bacteria that are immune to antibiotics?
I wonder if it’s possible for a mutation to arise where it produces an antibiotic that it is immune to but the other members of the population aren’t. It would probably require a long chain of silent mutations to occur in a very specific way and the resistance ability would have to evolve shortly before the antibiotic ability otherwise it may be too prevalent in the population
This is extremely interesting, brilliant video all around. Something very disturbing about watching these bacteria evolve rapidly and seeing the rate explained compared to earth 🌍 while having seen them wearing masks due to Covid
Can anyone please explain why he used fluorescent powder and uv torch? Please please please🙏🙏🙏🙏🙄
absolute champ, this video is exactly what I need for the biology assessment I'm doing, there's so much useful information and you made me think about what I'm writing in a different light as well.
0:59 Before I watch this video again.. Where can I get that t shirt? :O
People saying “but they’re still bacteria” really have no clue how evolution works XD
@Hassan Selim "where no longer bacteria (eg: they became multicellular?)" Becoming multicellular wouldn't make them no longer bacteria. In fact, there *are* multicellular bacteria. Bacteria is a clade, and you can't escape your ancestry. Your descendants must always be in the same clades you are in, under evolutionary theory.
@Crispr CAS9 thank you for your great explanations, I just have a question about a statement you made. You said that if by the end of the experiment the resulting creatures where no longer bacteria (eg: they became multicellular?) then it would disprove evolution. Why is that?
@Stay Tune Kaison "no you cannot have one without the only" Organisms exist with one and not the other, so you are demonstrably wrong.
@Crispr CAS9 no you cannot have one without the only if you shoot someone an the heart stops the brain continues functioning for a while before it stops so it shows if u do have one without the other it won’t last very long And example would be a lizard an it’s take if you cut a lizards take it will still be moving for a little bit it will stop so it cannot work wit a much more complicated things such as the brain or the heart
@Stay Tune Kaison "Darwin and his discovery on the birds beaks was that evolution or adaptation" If we interpret the differences as adaptive, then it was adaptation. Regardless, it was absolutely evolution, since we've documented the changes in their genomes for the different populations. "and let’s move to Darwinian evolution" You want to 'move on' to something 150 years out of date? "so before humans existed the heart had to evolve and grow so did the brain" Apes have hearts. So do mammals. So do amniotes. So do vertebrates. So do chordates. But by the time you are back to basal chordates, you are talking about a 'heart' that is a single enlarged, centralized, and slightly more heavily muscled ventricle that is fully homologous with the distributed vesicles of other deuterostomes. Which are, in turn, homologous with the types of vesicles found in protostomes. Which is basically just a slightly increased musculature around a vessel to improve lymph circulation, which isn't even needed for the smallest organisms. And that is to say it is, in comparison to a human heart, *much* less than half a heart. And yet it worked just fine for those organisms in their environment. So you can actually trace the development of hearts all the way back to a point where they weren't even needed. You can do the same for brains. " so which came first cause you can’t have one without the other? " You absolutely can have one without the other. "When the first bacteria appeared it had to eat but the senses weren’t a thing so how did it know where to eat or eyes weren’t thing so how did it find it’s food again with no senses" The same way bacteria find food now, since they don't have eyes now either.
No gloves lol
The brainwashing on this subject is surpassed by no other! Absolutely astonishing. So 75,000 generations of bacteria becoming. . . um, bacteria. . . is the equivalent of 1500 millennia of “hominid” evolution? So how long did it take to get to “hominid” again? Would you mind taking me through that process, even theoretically, step by step? I’m very interested to know just how the suite of organs that fill the torso evolved into a coordinated interacting interdependent group of unique components comprising complex animal life. Like bacteria. . .becoming bacteria. And please, no assumed “populations” for a starting point.
"And please, no assumed “populations” for a starting point." Explain evolution, but don't talk about evolution? Sounds like you don't know what the subject is in the first place.