47 thoughts on “Genetic variation, gene flow, and new species

  1. Great video and nice job! Thank you!

    I do have a question regarding the "randomness" — when we look at how the cell reproduce,how DNA replicates and how the stars and atoms move, we really don't see too much randomness there.  What is your definition / examples of randomness? Many Thanks!

  2. There is no proof of what he said, it is just an assumption and hence it is still theory which is unproven. Adaptation is not evolution to new species, they will remain same species with separate adapted skill or size or colours.

  3. On the last pair of chromosomes XX is for female and Xy is for male.
    When he showed the 46 chromosomes he only showed the male.

    (I'm just mentioning this for the younger audience who aren't familiar with chromosomes yet.)

  4. Skip to 7:07 if you're just here for a reminder of gene flow. You're ideas of the term are probably right though considering the definition is in the name.

  5. Look at all those finches….staying finches. All over the world we see finches. They've varying sizes of beaks and other body parts. But they are all just finches. There is no evidence, in the living world, or in the fossils, to show finches have ever been, or ever will be anything but finches. Real science looks at the real data and doesn't replace it with fanciful scenarios that have no data. The real data shows finches stay finches. Every time. If not, find one and tell what it is "evolving" into that is not a finch.

    We are told over and over and over that a new species shows evolution. Nope. Speciation (the creation of new species) does not support evolution as it is an example of stasis and stasis is the exact opposite of evolution. For ex. over 200,000 species of beetles are all still beetles. That's stasis. There are thousands upon thousands of species of birds, bees, lizards, trees, bacteria, trees, yeast, flowers, whatever. If a new species develops within any groups at all, you can bet your bottom science dollar that it will still be just a beetle, bee, bacteria, tree, fish, finch or whatever. That's stasis, not evolution.
    We are supposed to fill in the blanks here with…faith…and think, "Well! If a new species develops then things just keep evolving and evolving from there on." But the next step above a species, in the animal or plant kingdom, is a family. (A genus is just a grouping of similar species together). We aren't seeing any new families – much less any new order, class, phylum or kingdom – forming. Anywhere. Ever. According to Darwin's so called Tree of Life and peer reviewed evolutionary literature, new families have evolved. Over and over and over. Not just new families are claimed, but also the creation of new orders, classes, phyla.
    However, nature operates today as it did in the past. In the real world, with trillions of life forms around us, we never see anything developing above the level of a new species. Those life forms out there have purportedly had eons and eons of ancestors preceding them which should be revealing at least one example of a part this family "transitioning" to be a part that of another family. Again, we see stasis.
    We only see "transitions" to those higher levels in the purely theoretical, unverifiable, ancient past, in the realm of evolutionary literature, and never in any life around us. If there is no evidence for transitions from one family to another – and please provide data if you know of any such evidence in the observable and not theoretical realm – then there is no evidence for evolution. It's that simple. And that's just for starters on how evolutionism defies real science.
    Anyone: Kindly don't say some fossil provides the evidence. It is easy to point to a pile of petrified bones and make up stories about how its invsible and evidence- free descendants turned into some other life form. But if you insist, use a fossil. Name it. Then tell how you know it even had a descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less one that crossed the family barrier. Name the family it is transitioning out of and the one it is transitioning into.
    Or, here's another chance to support evolution with data. They say the two driving forces behind it are natural selection and beneficial mutations. Great. Name a life form. Tell what act of NS or what beneficial mutation is causing it to "evolve." Again, use real life forms. There are trillions out there. And we're told evolution is happening all the time. Remember, evolutionary poster kids like antibiotic resistant bacteria, walking stick bugs, some geckos, snowflake yeast, people with sickle cell anemia and so on show evolution is NOT happening. That's because they are all steadfastly staying bacteria, walking stick bugs, geckos, snowflake yeast and people. If not, what are they "evolving" into that doesn't fall into those categories? Cite your data.
    But you will not. When evolution defending supporters on YT are asked to name a life form and then a mutation or act of NS that is causing it to evolve, they never do that. They may put down a glut of words, but there is no data in those words, whatsoever, provided for that request. When they are asked to name a life form that is moving from being more than just a new species into a new family (not to mention class, order or phylum), ditto. The most typical dodge seen to those quesstions is when they change the subject to something else.
    And btw stasis is what the Bible predicts because it says creation of plants and animals has been halted. All we see now are those that multiply after their kind/family.
    You are not a goo through the zoo update. You have a Heavenly Father Who made you in HIS image and likeness. He loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him, too. If you are an atheist and evolution believer, if you are anyone at all, He wants you to be His child. Forever. I know I found that out myself when I was an atheist and evolution believer who had never looked outside the box.

  6. What are the difference between Intra-individuals (Qi) and inter-individuals intra-population genetic variance and what could it tell us?

  7. uhhhh, too much info. I don't get it. It has no meaning. IT MUST HAVE A MEANING, OR ELSE. Therefore I must create an alternative story that is easy to understand. Except, it is made up and not true…

  8. hi im doing a literature review about genetic variation, can you help me find relevant reading for this topic?

  9. Diversity in species does not equal nor explain evolution ……………….a computer code is never the result of random games.

  10. If 2 human populations were separated without the ability to interbreed, with very different environments, how long would it take for differences to develop so that they could not interbreed if they met?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *