Was on the toilet taking my Anton break. The dude inthe next stall was taking a Anton break too...we're wonderful people

This makes sense. It's been assumed for quite some time that there is a real time environmental influence on DNA. It's a complex dance between natural selection, random mutations, and environmental pressures. This gives evolution the most elasticity.

Anton is the one reason why I'm interested in science and space so much, he's the most wonderful person out there! More people should start sharing his content so he can reach 1 million subs!

I think of the inspection of planes in WW2 when they returned. Using the inspections they determined where they should increase the armor, and where less armor might work, because of the consistent bullet patterns they found on returning planes. Wherever there was a hole, it was likely less necessary to armor. It wasn't vital, because "Look, it survived well with this hole here." The planes that didn't return had holes where armor was needed most. Likewise, where the DNA can stand mutation least and still be surviving is what you see in that report. Vital stuff that mutates results in critical systems failure, and death.

One of the things I was pondering back in college, as a budding computer scientist was if you could weight a small program using recursion that would over time build out a larger structure. I also noticed in a genetics class that DNA was a sort of double binary system that had stop bits and tons of recursion :)

This might give us a good starting point to understand how mutations could be so rapid at some times especially after great disasters.

Great post. When you were talking about the plants mutating it seemed to suggest that the plant has a spirit or self-aware consciousness about it. Plants are master engineers and one rule of engineering is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"....and plants abide by this rule of thumb. Awareness of what works.

I think that the news headline that has appeared so often about this study that "mutations are not random" is misleading. At least from what I understand, many organisms have developed the ability to protect certain vital parts of their genome from random mutations -- a mechanism similar to the manner in which computers used in critical applications have for many years used error-correcting memories to avoid data corruption. Other less critical parts of the genome, though, (like the DRAM in consumer laptops) are still exposed to random changes or mutations. These replication errors when they occur are still random and not self-correcting, although the type and frequency of mutation is certainly influenced by changes in the environment (e.g., exposure to UV light from the sun, temperature extremes, chemical exposure, etc.).

In hind sight it makes quite sense that this kind of Meta-Evolution would emerge over long periods of time. After all DNA and their proteins are not insubstantial holders of information, but rather physical parts of every organism and subject to being changed. The ability to more or less easily evolve/mutate certain parts of a genome can thus be thought of as trait just like hair color or beak shape. This obviously adds a whole new level to the already staggering complexity of evolution... but that's just life i guess.

Always get a like Anton. Congratulations on nearing a million subscribers. It's an easy solution as your podcast is a great show. Thanks!

Just a point of clarification: Gene mutation actually occurs very rarely, about 10^-6 in humans. By itself gene mutation has very little effect on evolutionary change. But combined with other evolutionary pressures such as genetic drift, natural selection, gene flow, mating, etc. it does have an effect. The finch beak example is actually an example of epigenetic changes or genetic flow more than genetic mutation. However, the bias in genetic mutations is still extremely interesting. Love your videos.

Interesting. These observations make sense and would seem to be straightforward enough to explain in terms of protection and repair mechanisms being differentially targeted. More, as we know our epigenetics are directly effected by environment and are passed on in their effected form it's reasonable to assume that might in turn explain how an environmental pressure might specifically target the mutation rate in relevant parts of the genome.

The thing about lung mutation is that human lung size varies between ethnicities that live on different elevations. Of course there's more variability allowed.

It makes sense not being random, since you can see evolution as sort of an optimization function. So with time will trend towards evolutionary traits that allow to prolong the persistence of these traits.

It seems like if there's a mutation in a crucial system, it often leads to death. This also happens with human embryos, to the tune of some 78% of fertilized embryos self terminating due to genetic failure. The result is, only less crucial systems see evolution through the ages.

Hello Anton, since you say you're going to do more videos about this subject, please consider the following: The Nature article you cited says it exactly right; mutations occur randomly *with respect to their consequences*. It's been known for decades that different mutations happen at different rates, and that different parts of genomes mutate more and less often. To say that mutations are *purely* random is an oversimplified strawman. There are some genes whose functions are critical to organisms' survival, where almost any change would prove fatal. There are also some genes whose functions are not critical, where change is tolerated or even beneficial, depending on the environment. It makes evolutionary sense for organisms to detect and correct mutations of genes that are critical to their very existence, while wasting less time and energy on mutations of genes which are not mission-critical. These are the differences the Nature article documented. So contrary to its conclusions, the Nature article affirms the "long-standing paradigm". The Genome Research article you cited is more deeply flawed. Its conclusions are based on samples from only eleven individuals, which is a statistically meaningless amount. Also, the authors make no effort to track different mutations, in order to compare those rates with the one they claim to track. Your comments about Thalassemia and Sickle-Cell are confused. These diseases are not the same. They have different causes and different symptoms. Three different genes, HBA1, HBA2 and HBB, determine the structure of hemoglobin proteins. Each of these genes have different versions or alleles or mutations. The mutations which cause Sickle-Cell are not the same mutations which cause Thalassemia. But all of them create hemoglobin which breaks down much faster than the standard form, a cause of anemia. However, these different alleles also change the shape of the protein, which is why they protect against malaria, because the parasite depends on a specific shape in order to enter a red blood cell. It makes evolutionary sense for populations which live where malaria is endemic, to have genomes which have more hemoglobin mutations. Some of those mutations won't make any difference, some will be fatal, and some will be like those which cause Thalassemia and Sickle Cell, a compromise between protecting against malaria and doing their job of moving O2 and CO2 in and out of the body. But it's not the case those additional mutations are more likely to be beneficial. Even if hemoglobin genes are more likely to mutate, the effects of those mutations remain random *with respect to their consequences*. Given that so many of your commenters share your misunderstandings, I look forward to any future videos where you correct them.

I love the expansion of topics. You are an invaluable source of cutting edge science to the common public. Don’t stop!

Thanks Anton, you do such an excellent job in appeasing all learning types. Auditory learners with your dissertation, visual learners with excellent graphics, and kinesthetic learners with your live interaction. I wonder if calling them mutations in the science community is appropriate. Unless we have been monitoring a species throughout its evolutionary history, we should not call it a mutation. We should be calling them changes. Mutation implies that there is some absolute definitive was the DNA is structured based on instant of time when we have studied it. DNA is changing and evolving all of the time. This is a great post. Thanks Anton.

Again, I enjoyed your review, Anton. Some additional background seems appropriate … There are a number of genes that have been highly conserved over millions of years and across a vast number species. Example: Fen1 in C. elegans (a primordial worm) used for sex reconfiguration that is 90% identical to human (used in insulin function). Just how such genes can remain unchanged is a fascinating question. Epigenetics, the modification of the genome of offspring by life experiences (like physiological stress) of parents is also well established. We have also known about “hot spots” in genomes where alterations of DNA sequences occur faster than most other sites. What’s cool about this work is another level of adaptation, one of active anticipation. Non-random, “planned” mutations opens a new door to understanding the timeline of evolution.

Thank you Anton for always explaining complicated subjects so I can understand it.

Back when I was young, sickle cell was categorized as a genetic disease. This was before the benefit (protection against malaria) was known. It affected mostly those of African descent in cold climates such as New York or Chicago because as the temperature starts to drop the capillaries contract to preserve the core temperature protecting the organs. The shape of the blood cells with people having this trait causes them to become stuck in the narrow passages causing pain, mostly in the extremities. The only reason it is a problem at all is people with this trait were now in an area much different from the environment it developed in. In a tropical or subtropical region that person gets all of the benefit with none of the liability of that mutation. The interesting part is that our technology seems to have advanced further than evolution's ability to adapt with planes, ships, and controlled environments.

There are a variety of factors that could cause part of the genome to be more likely to be mutated than other parts. Germline DNA is stored in some physical configuration that leaves parts of the chain more susceptible to radiation damage, for instance.

I love your cast. It covers lots of scientific research areas and anyone explaining how the universe works for the common person without resorting to hyperbole involving mystical thinking is necessarily also de facto performing a public service to humanity.

The maths were always overwhelmingly against the random mutation theory.

DNA evolves. DNA apparently has evolved a feedback system that opens certain regions to mutation. What mutations is not controllable, just the possibility. One trigger for this is environmental stress.

Do like all the information that you present for the world. Thank you my Canadian friend. I enjoy your videos immensely

This makes perfect sense to me, and is how I actually thought evolution worked given my limited understanding of the deeper complexities of it. I've always seen it as outside factor effects species, those best suited to deal with situation, and/or those who are able to adapt to that change are who survive and spread genes.

I was planning on guiding human evolution--but then things got really crazy at work.

"The Universe exists by chance, we exist by chance." "No no no, we can explain, the DNA evolves due to self preservation and the affect of the environment and..." I guess the genomes are more self aware proactive than me.

This is fascinating Anton. Lots to unpack and think about.

Recently discovered and suscribed. Good stuff! Thanks. Looking forward to next genetics video.

Ok. This is cool. So… How does DNA ‘know’ how to prefer one sequence over another? Did that preference develop through random chance? At some point, if all organisms have a common ancestor, then all organisms were capable of extreme mutation as a species. At what point did that stop (and start again)? And it had to stop (and start again) at multiple stages at multiple points for multiple species for us to have the taxonomical outcomes we see now. Randomness would have a better chance of constructing the Taj Mahal than the intricacies we see in the history of life on this planet.

Wait, I remember reading YEARS AGO that parts of the chromosomes mutate more than others. In particular the ends mutate faster. So genes under rapid evolution end up there, like the red and green cone pigment genes in people, which are on the tip of the X chromosome. And some genes are just unstable and are only held in their correct form by evolutionary pressure, like the genes for achondroplastic dwarfism and retinitus pigmentosa. Achrondroplastic dwarfism is relatively common and usually is a spontaneous mutation. Then there are all the myriad polyglutamate diseases where a glutamate-encoding triplet like CGG starts to stutter and increase in number, most famously in Huntingdon’s disease.

Well, I'm impressed with the DNA repair mechanism you mentioned, which is essential to all life. Your first-life-no-earth would need that ingenious feature really quick to get off the launch pad. Same as the reverse-rna-transcription mechanism.

I think it's a very old theory that mutation is not random but Occam's Razor makes people choose the simplest explanation until new information comes along. And suggested by how closely a plant and the insect consuming it seem perfectly designed for interaction.

There is God. The world neither anything that lives here couldn't create themselves. Or have you not seen, that also this world with it's cool, and warm streams in ocean, and rains and sunshine's etc. are actually organised more like in living body, than randomly. The only thing which is missing is the seams, and joints and wires which are typical in human build, but that just proves that God is much more than we humans are. Everything looks natural when it has made with deepest wisdom and with enormous power.

Congratulations to those scientists who have LONG SAID that Darwinian evolution and neo-Darwinism are hopelessly inadequate to account for all of the life forms which we see around us.

Always enjoy Anton topics and insites.

Wonderful as always anton 🙃

How is this new? We've known this for a while. Some parts of each chromosome are more protected than others, so they accumulate less random mutations.

It never was random, often a misused term. There is no guiding by something of course, but rather impacted or as a reaction by environment etc. It's good these things were now researched in more detail. Don't forget there are already over 130.000 completed and successful studies regarding evolution, each proving and adding to our understanding. In case some apologist still claims its fake (sigh.....) - a biochemist

Fascinating. Makes sense why you don't see random life ending mutations popping up everywhere. The potential for gene hardening and evolution mapping in the future could be game changers.

Wow, that's a lotta people to thank! Love the way you succinctly sum up the research article.

this is good, I never really liked the "random mutations" explanation, I always thought nature seems to be more intelligent than that, especially in the case of mimicing the environment for example - we still need a better explanation for how mutations happen

Mutation is random. The ability to guard certain DNA sequences is itself an evolved trait. For example, in the case of the gene vs. malaria - it makes sense to that a creature able to mutate that gene would be better able to respond to changes in the malaria protozoa and would fare better than one that didn't, whereas if there was no selection pressure to fight malaria it's better to have it more static to protect against certain potential cancers forming. It's all a balancing act and the slightest pressure over a sufficiently long period of time can make quite a difference.

I love that you always find interesting themes for yourself Anton. You don't and haven't locked yourself in a single or very limited scope of themes. Keep interesting my friend and never stop learning.

Nice coverage, Anton. This is actually my concentration at the University.

I never believed that evolution was just random mutations. We adapt and grow to our environments, it's what human beings do. We adapt, and survive. Life has a sort of intelligence. Kinda like AI, but organic. There is no such thing as random.

I don’t really think people are still taught all mutations are random as Anton mentions? Even in a basic undergrad genetics or evolution classes your told there are certain biases in which genes undergo mutations or are preserved preferentially Still An amazing video !

Good info Anton👍🏼

thank you for your reporting sir

So mutations are largely responsible for the evolutionary process, but organisms have also evolved over time to mutate a certain way. It almost seems like a paradox or a thought loop.

I’m wondering if this could be connected to dietary,with the mutations maybe also being present in the animals on the menu contributing to faster processing of the mutations ? I love that you have my brain in overdrive every single day on so many different subjects 😵‍💫

Looking over these comments, I am amazed to see how many viewers of this channel don't understand the idea of random mutation and natural selection.

I really enjoy your listening to your presentations and range of content. Thank you.

I've always thought that life has a certain ability to develop itself based on how it is behaving, not just the other way around. Instincts are based in genetics, which is an example of behavior guided by DNA. But if behavior unaffected by DNA occurs, your offspring may be more likely to adapt to it. Sudden changes in available diets for example have already shown to change behavior, but that new behavior may then go on to change your genetics.

Makes sense it not being completely random. Otherwise it would be strange how fast (relatively speaking) it often happen.

I always like how DNA is represented like a ladder (twisted) rather than the weird shape it has with phosphates and sugars as loops and boats they are actually like.

Anton , this is Amazing ! I already have a red “Hello Wonderful Person” T-shirt , but I will get something else

Discussions about the nature of random numbers had led to hundreds of discussions of meta-theories. In terms of the study of nature, it will probably disappear, because the 'random', in the case of natural things, is simply everything that seems to have no mathematical meaning/cause in nature, but this is actually due to our ignorance. I think in terms of DNA, something closer to random would be mutation caused by UV rays, but more we know about the effect, less "random" its seem. They say that the only truly random number, created by man, would be a computer that measures the decay of a particle (I forgot which one), where scientists say it is really unpredictable, I don't understand quantum, that was something I heard around.

I personally believe that DNA has some sort of awareness about what's happening and can change rather quickly. Evolution just can't be random. Random mutations are often harmful or not helpful at all.

Thanks for covering this Anton, you're a great content creator!!!

One avenue of evolution I haven't seen discussed yet is the sharing of useful mutations between different species via bacteria and viruses.

Thank you Anton for my daily dose of Science :)

Is it really that hard to explain how areas with lots of mosquitos that interface with animals’ and humans’ blood quite often throughout the lives of their victims is mysteriously involved in genetic mutation pressure within those locations? There is obviously direct environmental stimuli for these mutations.

Love your evolution animation!

What an interesting finding in these studies - they could really lead us to a much deeper understanding of how evolution really works on a deeper level than we've known before! Thanks for this video, and for all you do. ❤ ❤ ❤ ❤

This is just another step towards proving my own theory based on evolutionary records. The fact is, there was never enough generations of complex organisms to explain evolution via random mutations. The fact that species are able to change dramatically over the course of relatively few generations can not be explained away by random mutations causing one group to out-compete another. The changes would have been gradual and randomized. This would not cause a single distinct evolutionary path for an entire species within a particular biome (a la Darwin's finches). Evolution is quite clearly guided by the environment, but not at random. I believe the reason cells (especially certain cells) reproduce at all during the lifespan of an organism is to record the environment and encode that information into our DNA. The following generation inherits genetic mutations which result from the lifestyle of the parent(s). I first inferred this from the number of clearly detrimental evolutionary changes some species exhibit, but which have no impact on survival. Negative changes into a more specialized species should not out-compete if they are occurring at random, but they frequently do so long as they have no overall impact on survival. There's nothing in Darwinian theory to explain why gaining or losing a trait with a completely neutral impact on the species should rapidly become dominant across the entire gene pool. Unless the mutations are responding directly to stimuli. This COULD be proven by sequencing the entire genetic code of individuals of the same species throughout their lifetime while exposing them to intense environmental pressure which should trigger an evolutionary response. We would also have to sequence the gametes just in case only reproductive cells experience these evolutionary responses. Take a few thousand specimens and expose them to differing environmental pressures and in theory you should see similar mutations in the DNA of the species when exposed to the same environmental stressors, and DIFFERENT mutations when exposed to different stressors. EDIT: I believe this is also linked to the reason why certain cells in the body are rarely, if ever, replaced. The "essential elements" to an organism can't afford to change very much, because it's not as if evolution were intelligent. Environmental pressure may trigger an evolutionary response, but the responses aren't actually intelligent. If our DNA suddenly changed how heart cells work, they might not work at all. So things that the body can't do without are perhaps protected from mutation by slow or non-existent cellular reproduction.

There was a study on how our first 9 Monts shapes rest of our lives

3:50 No need at all to have same messurable mutation rate over gene.

Super interesting again. Good work.

2:00 you're completely misinterpreting the terminology.. In line with common misconception that evolution is "random". Evolution was never random, evolution is the macroscopic changes in a species, that come about due to that species sexually selecting for desired traits, be it subconciously or conciously (as seen in humans, where in the modern day, intelligence is more highly selected for than agression, while in the ancient world such as in sparta, agression and martial prowess was selected for). This isnt random, this is guided, by the species itself, and applies to all species, even insects. MUTATIONS are random, the microscopic changes in DNA that THEN give rise to macroscopic effects. Yet you keep misinterpreting the two. Mutations isnt directly equal to evolution, and vice versa. Mutations are random. Evolution is sexually selected (and by the environment). A mutation will never become dominant if its not sexually selected for by said species. If human beings absolutely detested green eyes, those genes would have died out. Nothing random about it, its choice by concious self-aware beings.

People often misunderstand darwinian evolution as "random". Its not random at all. Even if this study didnt exist, and if DNA mutations were 100% random, EVOLUTION itself, the macroscopic effect of DNA mutations, has never been random. And no, this doesnt mean a white bearded god is deciding fate. Even within humans ourselves, evolution is self-guided by sexual selection. That's the reason Peacocks have their ennormous tail feathers, despite it actually HURTING their ability to evade prey and remain undetected. Its because species constantly "breed themselves" into a specific direction, either subconciously or conciously. The point is, evolution was never random, concious beings, no matter if they're as small as an ant, choose preferable sexual partners and behaviors to continue those genes and proliferate those mutations. The only time its "random" is when we're talking about flora. And yet people always think of evolution as a random RNG process. Its not. It's more akin to a tech tree, with branching choices, each choice being a currently living population with said genes. The collective of the species "chooses" which branch to pursue, by sexually prefering them. Thats not random by any definition. People are so insanely illogically afraid of "NO I DIDNT SAY GOD GUIDES EVOLUTION", that they overlook the most obvious logical conclusions, that actually have nothing to do with god. If they say evolution isnt random, they're so terrified of being associated with religion that they simply cannot say that, even if its logical and completely unrelated to a higher divine power. Just look at Anton, it took him less than 1 minute before he panic-included caveats "btw heh heh lol btw WAIT this does NOT mean im talking about god guiding evolution heh dont turn off please". Come on. Can't we be more mature about these discussions rather than tiptoeing like scared schoolkids? Nobody said god.

I heard a talk at the biology department in 2018 focussed on epigenetics. And they predicted that within the next 10 years - a lot of darwinist evolution results will be challenged and disproven. Causing a reference cascade and changing the whole concept of evolutionary pressure and adaptation.

Definitely a channel with one of the most intelligent comment sections on KZfaq.

On a serious note I betcha Rupert sheldrake might have a good bend on why this is but it’s just my opinion. I think morphic resonance has a scientific base we haven’t discovered yet. No woo, just an undiscovered natural database in the dark matter or something badass like that

I never really liked the "completely random mutation" explanation for evolution. Sure, some evolution will be due to random changes, it's just the nature of DNA and RNA replication, but it always seemed to me that an evolutionary reaction mechanism must also be in place. Life has been evolving on this planet for over 3 billion years, which always seemed to me to be plenty of time to evolve the ability for DNA to be altered in a more targeted way in response to environmental pressures. In fact, given the time scales involved, it would seem almost impossible for life to *not* evolve a mechanism of this sort. Such a trait would be useful enough that selective pressures would hugely favor any organism with this ability.

Wow, how are you finding this stuff? Great work! Such a source of amazing data!

I LOVE YOU ANTON!!!!!!! Keep doing biology videos

I've been saying it for at least 20 years! Random mutations can't work, just do the math. I'm amazed that so many "scientists" got it wrong.

The was test on Trained mice to fear the smell of flowers their babies that never felt the shock not smelled flowers had the fear

nice science. the proteins protecting the body is like my interest in the catalyst of the dna and the sugar having an impact on the dna and person. interesting dna science. i liked how it showed a different version of the dna, more complex and yet simple.

Thank you for another interesting and inforative video, you wonderful person!

🖖❤️

💖🌞

Lamarckian evolution was already somewhat apparent once epigenetics came into play, since gene expression is influenced by epigenes, which can commonly change as a result of the individual (or their parent's) life experience, and be passed down.

Anton you're awesome dude, I appreciate your videos.

DNA isn't the only Molecule for carrying information

Their beaks adapted to the available foods just like birds get longer beaks when they have to dig deep in trees for food. It's whatever the circumstances are. Cells mutate in response to the environment. How else could a micro organism swallow another micro organism and form symbiosis. The swallowed cell responds to the new environment and if is chemically compatible, they can form symbiosis. Mutation in response to the environment has more influence than natural selection. Symbiosis is more fundamental than competition.

A very interesting discussion Anton. With the idea of some species stopping evolution, in a sense not having mutations occur (an evolutionary dead end?) it makes me wonder whether there are more cases of this type of animal or creature in the Oceans than on land. the reason I suggest this is that biologists have suggested lately that viruses play a huge role as do bacterium on the development and evolution of species by substituting parts of an animals DNA with that of the virus or bacteria. It seems to me without actually checking that there would be more viruses in a terrestrial environment than in the oceans for example, even though that is where life arose. The oceans have some of the oldest known unchanged species on the planet, including the bacteria; The phytoplankton; the algae's; the Jellies; the worms and corals and sponges. Where as on land, even though there is bacteria, it would be a stretch to suggest they had not changed markedly from their original beginnings on land due to mutation and adaptation. Plants for example and inexplicable developed lignin in the structure a complex carbohydrate that had never existed previously, but allowed plants become woody and grow very tall. The only problem with this new mutation was that no other organism produced enzymes that could break it down, such as fungi, until much much later - Hence all the non decomposed, preserved coal deposits.

I’ve been rude lately in some posts but damn if we aren’t all extremely lucky to have Anton lol :)

It almost describes the iPhone success. Build a platform (aka the os) and the let other creators operate with freedom with in some boundaries that they bring needed apps appropriate to each environment that gives needed tools to making the platform efficient and more useful and therefore more viable but at the same time avoiding free mutations (viruses with in programs/apps) that makes the platform to heavy and thus degrading or I need of constantly being batched. (In this analogy the creator is Apple/God, the system/platform (earth and or universe) is the OS. The controls of the platform is laws that makes positive changes more likely and the nature is the needs (coders) of new apps at any given environment that gives the platform success to survive and grow. The perfect creation is an adoptable one able to change to its specific circumstances and not a completed product that only works 100% under some ideal circumstances.

This discovery will alter the methods of using mutation to date the divergence of species quite significantly. Using different parts of a gene with different mutation rates could very accurately date a divergence. It also implies a form of meta- evolutionary or even non- evolutionary pressure on the gene that selects for how genes are selected. It will be interesting to see where this goes in future.

Anton you are basically KZfaq's Carl Sagan.... Thank you for all of your work.

I start every day with coffee & Anton.

I have often wonder why evolutionary science does not classify different kinds of mutation? Mutations that are chromosome damage, mutations that are a real mutations, like a new gene sequence, mutations that are epigenetic where something inhibits gene function. Odd that when something gets this specific and serious about the science of mutations it becomes a completely different science, like epigenetics.

While working with evolutionary algorithms, for example to optimize factory schedules, it became clear to me that there was an advantage in representing schedule elements (e.g. jobs) as _objects_ (methods and data) that would make their _own_ interpretation of "mutate" (etc.) commands/signals, so as to avoid any "runt offspring". As one would expect, this vastly increased the rate of convergence to useful solutions. Taking this "algorithm evolution" further, different types of mutation could be prioritised, e.g. essentially as "rules of thumb" derived from logged pathways to successful (useful solution) results of many previous runs. In some kind of biology or pre-biology, featuring individuals within a soup of other individuals and occasional random signals/triggers (e.g. radioactive decay particles) I guess this would translate into ("be implemented as") a messy (evolved) combination of relative exposure surfaces (e.g. critical stuff being physically surrounded by veneer stuff?) and repair (implying data redundancy - in individuals or through interactions with a "standards-reinforcing" population). Just playing with these ideas.

I am a sickle cell with the genotype SS. Before seeing this video I made observations that lead me to hypothesis the results of this study. I live in Ghana, West Africa. I noticed that over the years I've been meeting more and more people with the HBs trait. 15 years ago it was present in abou 1/15 people. Now it's more like 1/10

It's not particularly surprising that all of the most upvoted comments are something along the lines of "this is not particularly surprising". I've been in this awkward camp for quite some time now of "I don't doubt the truth of evolution for a second" but also "the story I'm being told about how it works just doesn't add up at all". The problem is any time you try and get into it the biologists assume you're acting in bad faith and shut you down. I think biology has become too important to be left to the biologists.

Ty for sharing this info...👍