Deprecated: Function session_register() is deprecated in /home/bestofgo/public_html/login.php on line 4
How evolution really works - Best of Google Video

Google Videos - Best of Google Video

(also best of YouTube)
Best of google is not sponsored by or affiliated with or .

How evolution really works

October 25, 2007
Get 2Gb free online storage with Dropbox


Dan (guest)  -  October 25, 2007, 18:10
Although evolution is generally marked by much more complex mutations than the one demonstrated in this video, it gets the point across very clearly, and indisputably. Evolution exists, and it WILL happen, regardless of environment.
eruenion  -  October 25, 2007, 18:54
wow, that was awesome!
 blindgaenger  -  October 25, 2007, 21:21
Yay, science + Wagner
Prabhu21 (guest)  -  October 26, 2007, 16:05
A simple and intelligent way of puting a complex scientific theory. Well done guys
Lim (guest)  -  October 26, 2007, 18:24
zerat (guest)  -  October 28, 2007, 10:30
science at work ^^
 Heke  -  October 28, 2007, 21:44
If this is how evolution REALLY works, how did people think it works before they saw this? :)
wih (guest)  -  October 29, 2007, 01:17
Nothing very special about this vid but maybe it's good for those who don't yet believe in science.
 pre  -  October 29, 2007, 04:18
Don't even get me started on how crazy evolution is. First off, DNA "mutations" do not ADD information, all they do is re-organize and shuffle existing combinations of codes. evolution violates mendal's law, the law of biogenisis, the law of the conservation of angular momentum, the first and second law of thermodynamics (open and closed systems), boyles law (so-called star births) etc, the list goes on. NOW, variations, changes built in to the DNA. (long beak, or short beak) does happen, and is observable. no new information is added. macro evolution is fantasy. no bird will turn into a dinosaur over millions of years. no Dan, it is not science, it is a club people join to have faith in different god, or no god.
@pre (guest)  -  October 29, 2007, 17:00
information gets changed into new information, at times a dna copy is misinterpret, (yea, cells do that) or some other random factor (an alien part enters the system), thus, 'laws' applying to a closed system cannot be applied. Changes are small but do happen, enough small changes make big changes, reptiles evolve into birds if given enough time and proper environment. You even said it yourself, long beak/short beak is an example of macro evolution.
same guy (guest)  -  October 29, 2007, 17:01
Oh, great music btw :)
 Heke  -  October 29, 2007, 20:24
pre, i disagree with you, but I get you. I mean, it must be really hard to understand evolution if you are a moron.
TKD (guest)  -  October 29, 2007, 21:28
Excellent vid, makes it v.simple and clear and reli is undeniably tru. I cant believe that about 40%+ Americans (i think it was(correct me if i'm wrong)) still believe in creationism and suchlike
 Keisari_P  -  October 30, 2007, 03:29
Good video. Pre: Mutation can add information. Sometimes entire genes are replicatede multiple times because of "unsuccesfull" copying prosess. This new genetic material serves as platform for more complex mutations. Multiple copies of HOX-gene evetually made it possible for organism to have different body parts (arms, legs, head). Evolution may take faster leaps, when example usefull gene gets replicated multiple times (even ~10 times in single event). It is true, that rondom mutations by them self dont add that much new material. It's the replication prosess itself that sometimes goes wrong. When given millions of years, this theory well explains how humans evolved from single cell bacteria to monkey with 30.000 genes.
Anon Nymous (guest)  -  October 30, 2007, 14:03
@Pre: There is one instance when evolution has failed blatantly, ant it is when part of mankind evolved to creationists ...
yes (guest)  -  October 30, 2007, 21:58
horses have 4 legs
Kayser (guest)  -  October 31, 2007, 19:13
In reality the probability for a mutation to be beneficial to an individual is close to zero. In this video it is initially 7/8, which creates an illusion that the population evolves.
 pre  -  October 31, 2007, 19:39
a long beak and a short beak is NOT an example of macro evolution. to say that is a bit contrary to logic. when you see a beak evolve into a snout, then you will have your example of macro evolution. you say small changes make big changes, however no changes can create new information that go beyond the limits of that specific kind of animal.
 pre  -  October 31, 2007, 19:41
Anon Nymous (guest) - October 30, 2007, 14:03 @Pre: There is one instance when evolution has failed blatantly, ant it is when part of mankind evolved to creationists ... Heke - October 29, 2007, 20:24 pre, i disagree with you, but I get you. I mean, it must be really hard to understand evolution if you are a moron. _______ gentlemen, this is evidence of a emotional response, not a logical one. when one reaches the end of one's intellect, there is no need to say anything further.
Ryan (guest)  -  October 31, 2007, 19:41
@Kayser: yes, the probability is close to zero, but it does happen. ever met anyone without a spleen? ever met anyone without wisdom teeth? its genetic mutation. They're no longer needed, and because theyre not needed, those genetic trees continue. So, even though the probability is very, very low to have a mutation that does anything, with the number of people on this earth, the number of times it happens is probably rather high.
 pre  -  October 31, 2007, 20:25
Ryan, so your evidence for evolution is lost information? that is not evidence for single cell to trillion celled organisms.
 Heke  -  November 1, 2007, 09:41
pre, it's really hard to explain evolution to someone who doesn't understant it to begin with. I don't know what the alternative that your offering for evolution is, but I'm willing to hear what explanation proves evolution wrong and is not "a bit contrary to logic."
 pre  -  November 1, 2007, 17:44
Heke, I understand evolution. You are using the argument "you are too dumb to understand this". How is that even a valid point?
 pre  -  November 1, 2007, 17:49
The natural world that we see was designed, it did not build itself out of natural laws. That is EXACTLY what evolution trys to claim. Can I prove empirically that the Creator did it? No i was not there, but the evidence (such as Symbiosis, Entropy, similarities in DNA) obviously points to a fully developed creation that has millions of co-dependent relationships. To try and explain how all these seperate organisms evolved to benefit each other (evolution) only takes place in imaginary logic.
viktor (guest)  -  November 1, 2007, 19:19
Lul, dinosaur fossils pls !
@pre (guest)  -  November 1, 2007, 20:47
Evolution isn't necessary about adding information, as you seem to think. It can be viewed in small steps of mutation followed by selection, and neither of these steps break any natural laws. If a mutation occurs that is of advantage to an individual, that individual's genes will prosper as said individual has more offspring than his competitors (or his offspring survive for longer due to their inherited genes). This means that eventually "good" genes will spread their way through the populace, and "bad" genes will not. So, basically, if a mutation occurs that is of benefit, it is probable that it will spread throughout the population. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at. Also: belief in a God and Evolution aren't entirely incompatible. A God of some kind could have created the universe and/or self-replicating molecules, in turn starting the evolutionary process. Of course, he'd be completely redundant, though - since his origin would remain unexplained, and would ultimately come down to just "God just exists." It's easier to simply say "The universe just exists." if following the same line of thought.
 pre  -  November 2, 2007, 15:51
you are confusing micro-evolution (it should be called variation) with macro evolution. (the first single cell organism, to multiple celled organisms). macro evolution does REQUIRE an increase in genetic infromation over time to accomplish its "self machine replicating system". when you state:" If a mutation occurs that is of advantage to an individual," (first off that has never been witnessed.)"that individual's genes will prosper as said individual has more offspring than his competitors" (that is not macro evolution, that is simply natural selection, which simply selects. the genetic code was already present, no new code was "mutated".)"So, basically, if a mutation occurs that is of benefit, it is probable that it will spread throughout the population." (No mutations are beneficial, DNA changes are NOT mutations. evolutionism is trying to take over, so now mutations are defined as simple "changes". however according to Mendel's laws of Genetics, no NEW information is being formed, just a shuffling of patterns.)" A God of some kind could have created the universe and/or self-replicating molecules, in turn starting the evolutionary process." Hey go ahead and believe that, but there is no evidence for an "evolution" type god, and he is certainly not the same god that I worship.
Vel (guest)  -  November 2, 2007, 22:10
pre, you are so brilliant. Sorry I didn't read all of your text. Had to recover from laughing so hard. YMMD! Yes, now give it to me!
 pre  -  November 3, 2007, 18:39
vel: laughing at what?
truthseeker (guest)  -  November 4, 2007, 14:07
What a load of total garbage! A misleading video full of claims that have already been refuted by science. You would have to be so gullible and naive to believe in evolution! Surely nobody can be that stupid? Scientific theories are not facts! And why do they need to lie about so called scientific discoveries that they say validate their intellectual crap??? The greatest scientists throughout history have been creationists.
Jon (guest)  -  November 4, 2007, 15:30
There's no difference between microevolution and macroevolution, you're making a distinction when no such thing exists. Macroevolution can be seen as the product of lots of microevolution if you so wish, but they're both misleading and ill-applied terms. With regards to the "mutations are never beneficial" bit: surely antibiotic resistance is good for bacteria, no?
wowza (guest)  -  November 4, 2007, 21:09
jon said: "There's no difference between microevolution and macroevolution" ....surely the intelligence here is higher? how is it possible to simply ignore definitions?
wowza (guest)  -  November 4, 2007, 21:09
jon said: "There's no difference between microevolution and macroevolution" ....surely the intelligence here is higher? how is it possible to simply ignore definitions?
to Jon (guest)  -  November 4, 2007, 21:13
"antibiotic resistance is good for bacteria, no?" ... this is not new information Jon. Humans who have resistance to HIV were simply passed down the DNA. No new information was required, in fact, loss of information can cause immunity.
to to Jon (guest)  -  November 4, 2007, 23:36
Yes, and that wasn't aimed at the "no new information is added in mutations" if you actually read what I said. I was arguing that some mutations are beneficial. Either way, there are a few ways in which it is possible for new information to be added. You have to realise that the genome of an organism isn't a fixed length, and duplication mutations can occur - in effect copying genes. These genes are rather useless in themselves as they would produce a protein that was already being made - however further mutations can cause them to produce new proteins instead. @Wowza: I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say there. Ignore definitions, you say?
to to to Jon (guest)  -  November 5, 2007, 19:37
you said "I was arguing that some mutations are beneficial" no mutations where information has been added have ever been beneficial. the mutations given as evidence have obvious side effects.
to to to jon again (guest)  -  November 6, 2007, 00:49
obvious very harmful side effects, that far out way any so-called "good" that the mutation accomplished...
Niedec (guest)  -  November 12, 2007, 02:09
I see nothing in evolution that directly contradicts a belief in God. God is above understanding, therefore, who are we to determine how he created the world? What most creationists attempt to do is apply a finite understanding to an infinite point of view. For this reason, almost any argument for or against the nature of God is illogical. Besides, I think the start of the video made itself perfectly clear. Natural Selection and the Origin of Species are different theories.
 pre  -  November 12, 2007, 02:31
I agree, Natural Selection is different from the "origin of species". natural selection only selects from existing DNA. Which is why we have never witnessed an animal pro create anything outside of its kind. the argument that we do not see it because it takes "millions" of years is a cop-out. Now the "origin of species" is pure fantasy that is simply needed to believe in evolutionism. it is illogical, and simply dishonest for an evolution to say their theory is "fact". I think placing evolutionism with a god is putting a huge limit on God. God does not need the theory. Evolutionism tries to equate itself with biology, physics, chemistry, when in fact evolutionism is completely useless and hinders true observable science. I believe God created this universe, and i love science, however i am honest enough to admit that origins has no true effect on observable biology, physics, etc.... as soon as a scientists leaves the realm of observable science, and goes to the topic of origins, they have left science and entered into the realm of faith.
FSM Follower (guest)  -  November 15, 2007, 08:57
Your all idiots. If you knew anything at all you would know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created God who begot everything else. So all of the mumbo jumbo talk of evolution vs. creationism is a moot point. What i just wrote is just as provable as both sides of the argument. Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.
 pre  -  November 15, 2007, 18:00
yes, both sides are impossible to give empirical evidence for proof. evolutionism is completely illogical, and contradicts universal laws. creation has the Bible, where you can see the truth. its interesting how evolutionists call me crazy, when they believe in the big bang, spontaneous generation, primordial soup, etc. the list goes on.
phil (guest)  -  November 16, 2007, 16:49
I posted a response to this video here:
FireWaia (guest)  -  November 20, 2007, 13:10
i lost you guys a bit up, but still very happy to see people arguing on the internet over something else that "i pwned you on CS" or "america sux, nuhu..yehe, nuhu"...
Ramvad (guest)  -  December 5, 2007, 15:52
All religious "stories" be it Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism,Buddism,Confususnism,Taoism,Zoharastrianism and all other pre christianity religions are a result of man's thought process.They were recorded and relayed to the followers and converts as an instrument of control and establish some sort of rule and conduct that reflected the socoal morals and the values of that perticular group and that era. Science is slowly and gradually unravelling the complex and mysterious occurences throwing some light in to what we are and what is our eventual destiny.By all means it is very easy to believe in the creator of the universe ( call it god if you may) in the absense of scientific proof that it is something else than just a single creator force...What is more important is that we all learn to respect nature and life and all living things-The Unification theory comes to mind! Whatever belief you have - enjoy.AS for me I am a lasped Jesuit.
C (guest)  -  January 31, 2008, 23:21
In real life mating isn't a random variable, right? At least not for more complex organisms like mamals. Still, truly a great presentation of how evolution work. Thumbs up!
JueBee (guest)  -  July 9, 2008, 22:22
The fact that mating isn't random helps speed the process of evolution. When lions mate, the lioness mates with the biggest and best male, so that the offspring can be bigger and better, thus hepling the species to survive and excel at the competition. Since all species do this, as far as I know, they all grow and change to survive the competition, evolving.
al (guest)  -  July 24, 2008, 23:35
good well done
Brad (guest)  -  October 4, 2008, 19:04
Good video,BUT i think your absolutely wrong. Your video demonstrates ADAPTATION NOT EVOLUTION. Your organisms are simply adapting to their environment. Evolution would be your little organism transforming into something totally new. Variation is already in your genes. Increased species have never developed from an OUTSIDE source by random mutations. This means, if everything in our world turns blue, i am not going to turn blue. It is in our DNA to be the color we are. Nothing in my environment that changes can change my DNA. Nice try though
diCharge (guest)  -  June 9, 2009, 21:48
Macro evoliution have not been observed in the lab and in nature. Every other science denies macro evoliution including geology. There is nothing to fill the gap where bird was becoming fish, whereas we have primary and final results.



Please enter the text below

5 random popular videos

94% interesting
Sand art
Sand art

90% funny
Death is coming for you
Death is coming for you

80% interesting
Web 2.0 explained
Web 2.0 explained

93% impressive
Octopus escape artist
Octopus escape artist

96% funny
David Copperfield parody
David Copperfield parody