Natural Selection Is Kinda Overhyped

Beware the Adaptationist Fallacy! Not all traits are the result of natural selection, there are many other possibilities such as spandrels and other neutral traits. And in the big scheme of things, is understanding adaptations really the central problem of biology?

SOURCES + FURTHER READING:

#adaptationism #naturalselection #evolution

[vauchomarx]

Watched this while eating a peanut butter bread with jam, and decided to subscribe.

[aryazand]

Great video! One critique: I think a substantial number of biologist would disagree with referring to DNA that doesn't code for protein as "non-functional". That DNA impacts the cell whether it is the energy used for the frequent replication and transcription that DNA, or the interaction that DNA (and it's RNA) has with other molecules in the cell, or cis-regulatory elements within that DNA etc. The function of that DNA is typically more robust to point mutations, but that doesn't make that DNA non-functional

[stickplayer]

I think accepting the assumption that a majority of DNA "has no function" is a fraught position to take. We thought a lot *more* of it was "junk" just a few years ago. There's a certain amount of hubris in the ideas here. as they make the almost manifestly wrong assumption that we now do understand what *all* DNA does, whereas we have a history of just ignoring the parts we don't understand now.

[haldanebdoyle]

Interesting fact related to the panda segment. The evolution of the human thumb (enabling more complex tool use) is a similar example of pleiotropic changes put into motion by the older changes in the foot to allow long distance, energy efficient bipedalism. I would love to see a video on all the features of human evolution that set us apart from other species along these lines.

[chiphand]

If human close to chimpanzee doesn’t have chin as we only had it, we call ourselves the ‘Chinpanzee’

[Tempo_Topos]

Darwin lived in an era in which natural theology was still popularly used to explain the existence of biological function (that is, god created organisms to live in certain ways), and introducing the idea that function could be created and maintained naturally (by natural selection) was revolutionary. But more than a century later we find the possibility of natural selection obvious and intuitive, so now we are free to investigate all of the traits of organisms that are non-functional, or at least non-optimal. Darwin himself discussed this in terms of sexual selection, of course.

A similar debate happened in the history of geology. Initially geologists believed that Earth was largely shaped by catastrophic events, including the biblical flood. In response, other geologists argued that given enough time even gradual, uniform forces could change the face of the planet, and we don't need to use religious myths to explain things. Now we understand that the Earth does change slowly over long periods, but it also suffers periodic catastrophes, like erupting volcanoes, ice ages, and asteroid impacts.

[IanZainea]

Thanks for actually explaining pangloss and not just saying "it's not important"

[albertosierraalta]

Your videos are amazing man! Nice animations, funny moments, simple explanations, great pacing! Keep doing it my man! I hope this channel grows as it deserves. This content has great quality

[BrunoOversett]

Man, you're channel is incredible!
Your content is great! Congratulations
And thank you for the discussion, i'll get deeper into this for sure, and i'll spread the word haha!

[StardustAnlia]

I read an article that said we have chins because if we didn’t, our jaws would split in half when we got punched in the face. It explored how chins appeared at the same time that our hands started to be capable of forming fists.

[minh]

Love your videos!! I’ve always wondered if the things I learn at school are 100% accurate. Thank you for allowing me to think from different perspectives! If possible, could you do a video on epigenetics and the interaction of our genes and the environment?

[tesafilm]

Have been looking for a theoretical biology/ philosophy of biology channel since forever. Happy to have found one now!

[gatuarhin]

While random mutation can influence evolution, it's important to note that natural selection is still by far the most important factor. Mutations that may seem neutral may actually have very slight positive or negative effects on a species. Over a long enough period of time, mutations that have slight negative effects would be weeded out and vice versa for positive traits. You can see this in traits such as not having wisdom teeth, this has only a slight benefit but is still naturally selected on.

[TraderJoe]

Thank you. Finally someone has simplified this debate to a level I understand. On "no environment without an organism", sorry, failing to grasp this concept as Big Bang, whole of lot exploding stars and billions of years passed without any organism present. Maybe I am missing something.

[myhamismad]

Fantastic! I would definitely use this as a supplement to readings and lectures. You even broke down the Panglossian part of it!

[sanya]

Awesome video! Held my interest and I have no background in such topics. But from various things I've read or seen about medicine, science, and their attending philosophies as of late, holistic approaches are succeeding and age old schisms becoming bridged as false dichotomies are revealed in thinking. Like neutralism vs adaptationism, nature vs nurture, etc. Thank you for sharing

[AdeebaZamaan]

You're the only non-textile manufacturer besides myself I've seen try to pull so many threads together. Big Liebnitz fan here, Voltaire straw-manned him, which made funny satire but bad argument. What does random mean, anyway? Back when, I noted that even if we could assume random mutation of genes, evolution couldn't be random if it SELECTED for fitness. (I had to point out that "fit" meant, not Most Buff, but tetrised into the eat and be eaten chain.) 16:37 In spite of Punctuated Equilibrium, Gould was considered a strict Darwinian, but I don't think even Darwin was a strict Darwinian. Wallace was the OG (Original Gradualist). Competitive publication problem, solved by cooperation, who'da thunk? Loving the advance of epigenetics! Give ol' Lamarck a crumb. In summary: What fun you are! Thanks for looking at all the little reduced pieces and making a coherent and detailed picture of them.

[Guishan_Lingyou]

Great video. I was familiar with many of the ideas presented, but it's been a long time since I learned about them and you did a great job of presenting the information in a concise and entertaining way.

[giacarc]

well researched, insightful and simply explained. thank you so much

[elihyland]

Honestly thanks for explaining the chin thing. I’ve heard that my whole life but no one ever put it so simply. I feel dumb but a little smarter now