You Are Not Your Genes: The Hereditarian Fallacy Zach B. Hancock 2026-09-21 | You Are Not Your Genes: The Hereditarian Fallacy
Top 10 Most Influential Papers on Evolution Zach B. Hancock 2024-09-30 | Have you ever wondered what are ~the~ must-read papers in the field of evolutionary biology? In this video, we do a top 10 countdown of what I think are the most influential and important papers in the field! Obviously, these are ~my~ picks, and if you have different ones, please share them in the comments! Honorable mentions:Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. (1977). Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3(2), 115-151.Sagan, L. (1967). On the origin of mitosing cells. Journal of theoretical biology, 14(3), 225-IN6.Felsenstein, J. (1985). Phylogenies and the comparative method. The American Naturalist, 125(1), 1-15.Haldane, J. B. S. 1924. A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection. Part I. Trans. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 23:19-41Wright, S. (1943). Isolation by distance. Genetics, 28(2), 114West-Eberhard, M. J. (2005). Developmental plasticity and the origin of species differences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(suppl_1), 6543-6549Woese, C. R., & Fox, G. E. (1977). Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 74(11), 5088-5090.Kubatko, L. S., & Degnan, J. H. (2007). Inconsistency of phylogenetic estimates from concatenated data under coalescence. Systematic biology, 56(1), 17-24.
Junk DNA... Its a Thing Zach B. Hancock 2024-07-09 | The concept of junk DNA - the notion that some portion of the genomes of every organism is non-functional - has been around for over 60 years. And yet, many people, including some biologists, don't seem to understand it. In this video, I review the history of the concept, including framing junk DNA in an ecological and population genetic lens, demonstrating that it's virtually guaranteed to exist. We also take a deep dive into the infamous ENCODE controversy, discussing notions of biological function, and the many methodological, statistical, and conceptual errors of the consortium. youtu.be/MUohUfW4U04#junkdna #evolution #education Links to @CreationMyths ongoing feud with the Discovery Institute over junk DNA:youtu.be/HB6Ilu5zo4U?si=J_kFMEpO1Z8-ryWRyoutube.com/playlist?list=PLzz-uby_-OesLnhYK4oYuf1JGrnmJQuLDevolutionnews.org/2024/05/reflections-on-casey-luskins-debate-with-dr-danevolutionnews.org/2024/05/did-dr-dan-make-us-change-our-position-on-junk-dnaevolutionnews.org/2024/06/dr-dan-has-a-taste-for-debateevolutionnews.org/2024/06/documentation-for-dr-danReferences and further reading:Graur, D., Zheng, Y., Price, N., Azevedo, R. B., Zufall, R. A., & Elhaik, E. (2013). On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE. Genome biology and evolution, 5(3), 578-590. (academic.oup.com/gbe/article/5/3/578/583411)Palazzo, A. F., & Gregory, T. R. (2014). The case for junk DNA. PLoS genetics, 10(5), e1004351. (journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351)Doolittle, W. F. (2013). Is junk DNA bunk? A critique of ENCODE. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(14), 5294-5300. (pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1221376110)Kellis, M., Wold, B., Snyder, M. P., Bernstein, B. E., Kundaje, A., Marinov, G. K., ... & Hardison, R. C. (2014). Defining functional DNA elements in the human genome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(17), 6131-6138. (pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1318948111)Lynch, M., & Marinov, G. K. (2015). The bioenergetic costs of a gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(51), 15690-15695. (pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1514974112)Lynch, M., & Conery, J. S. (2003). The origins of genome complexity. science, 302(5649), 1401-1404. (doi.org/10.1126/science.1089370)Ohno, S (1972). So much "junk" DNA in our genome. Brookhaven Symposia in Biology. 23: 366–70.Moran, L. A. (2023). What's in Your Genome?: 90% of Your Genome Is Junk. University of Toronto Press.
Deriving Fishers Theorem: The Math Behind the Sanford Debunk Zach B. Hancock 2024-04-10 | In this video, I walk you through the math in mine and @CreationMyths's recent debunk of Basener & Sanford (2018), which you can find here: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-024-02077-w. I demonstrate how Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection can be derived without any simplifying assumptions from the Price theorem. Don't forget to stop by Dan's channel on April 24th at 9 EST for a full lit review! Check out the paper reveal:youtu.be/5TdPBWwbZAw?si=XxpHVb0ZAQDAvf1jGenetic entropy debunks:youtu.be/qmWcqAhcbMQyoutu.be/P2o_KC7sc98youtu.be/8CZtjio4FAc?si=jYnf2v1MHBrz7XcF
Are Evolutionary Forces Akin to Newtonian Forces? Zach B. Hancock 2024-04-03 | In 1984, philosopher of science Elliott Sober in his book The Nature of Selection contended that evolution is a "theory of forces" akin to those from Newtonian mechanics. In this video, we review his thesis and its critics, evaluating evolutionary theory through the lens of philosophy.SourcesSober, E. (1984). The nature of selection: Evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. University of Chicago Press.Walsh, D. M. (2007). The pomp of superfluous causes: The interpretation of evolutionary theory. Philosophy of Science, 74(3), 281-303.Walsh, D. M., Ariew, A., & Matthen, M. (2017). Four pillars of statisticalism.Stephens, C. (2010). Forces and causes in evolutionary theory. Philosophy of Science, 77(5), 716-727.Stephens, C. (2004). Selection, drift, and the “forces” of evolution. Philosophy of Science, 71(4), 550-570.Millstein, R. L. (2002). Are random drift and natural selection conceptually distinct?. Biology and Philosophy, 17, 33-53.
Waiting-time? No Problem. Zach B. Hancock 2024-03-06 | This year marks the 20th anniversary of Michael Behe & David Snoke's infamous paper that introduced the waiting-time problem, which argues that waiting for specific mutations takes an inordinate amount of time, precluding evolution. In this video, we review the controversy around the paper and its many critiques. In addition, we discuss more recent papers, point out fundamental flaws in Mendel's Accountant, and debunk the waiting-time problem with our own simulations. Link to the code used in this video: github.com/zachbhancock/talkpopgen/tree/main/Waiting-time_No_Problem#evolution #creationism
Is Evolution a Theory in Crisis? Zach B. Hancock 2024-01-02 | The popular press has been buzzing for years with claims that evolutionary theory is undergoing a rapid transformation - discoveries in molecular, cellular, and developmental biology are radically changing our view of nature. But do these claims have any factual basis or is it all just hype? In this video, I evaluate calls for an "extended evolutionary synthesis" by clarifying the history of the Modern Synthesis, argue that it's distinct from contemporary evolutionary theory, and ultimately conclude that there have been no new mechanisms of evolution discovered by any emerging field in biology since the 1920s. Thus, evolutionary theory is neither a "theory in crisis" nor in need of major extension or reformulation. #evolution #educationSourceshttp://georgealozano.com/teach/evolution-UNBC/papers/eldredge.pdfnature.com/articles/315400a0doi.org/10.2307/2408842link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-22028-9_11pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0702207104link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-020-00347-6nature.com/articles/514161adoi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2022.04.005doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2864link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01947504youtu.be/0e7BVwxKbH0youtu.be/tfMMuI7rQ8E
Understanding the Adaptive Landscape Zach B. Hancock 2023-12-18 | In 1932, Sewall Wright introduced the concept of the adaptive landscape, and it has been an enduring metaphor in evolutionary biology ever since. In this video, I explain how the landscape metaphor helps us to conceptually understand the interactions between selection, drift, and mutation, as well as sheds light on concepts like pleiotropy, the genetic load, and the evolution of the distribution of mutation effects, as well as bridges the gap between micro- and macroevolution. #evolution #education
Genetic Drift | The Causes of Evolution | Ep. 5 Zach B. Hancock 2023-11-16 | In the fifth installment of The Causes of Evolution, we're looking at genetic drift - the stochastic change in allele frequencies due to finite populations. We show how the binomial distribution can be used to model drift and how it underlies the basis of the Wright-Fisher model, discuss the concepts of identity-by-descent and coalescence, and touch on effective population size. Haldane, JBS (1964) A defense of beanbag genetics. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/405999/pdfThe Causes of EvolutionVariation | Ep. 1: youtu.be/lfGvkvTiqI8Nonrandom Mating | Ep. 2: youtu.be/519JfMbSl_AFitness & Natural Selection | Ep. 3: youtu.be/tzI3DVI3zokMutation | Ep. 4: youtu.be/4bulxOLIZ7A#evolution #education
Evolutions Fundamental Theorem Zach B. Hancock 2023-10-05 | Many branches of science have theorems, from Pythagorean Theorem in geometry to the Binomial Theorem in elementary algebra. But does evolutionary biology have any theorems?In this video, we take a sweeping, epic journey through the world of the evolution of altruism and spite, evolutionary game theory and kin selection, and, ultimately, the most fundamental theorem of evolution: the Price Theorem. The story is told in a biographical fashion, following the life and times of George R. Price - the forgotten man behind some of the most important discoveries in evolutionary theory. Chapter I: Funeral of an Altruist (2:36)Chapter II: Medea & the Evolution of Spite (24:58)Chapter III: The Fundamental Theorem of Evolution (40:17)Chapter IV: Evolutionary Games (1:16:50)Chapter V: The Price of Altruism (1:40:01)Warning: This video includes discussion of mental health, drug use, depression, and suicide. Discretion is advised. Price's works:Price, GR (1970). Selection and covariance. Nature, 227: 520-521. cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19710101280Price, GR (1972). Extension of covariance selection mathematics. Annals of Human Genetics, 35: 485-490. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a5afaa70eef781e5117baf6017efe63d7a25de80Price, GR (1972). Fisher's 'fundamental theorem' made clear. Annals of Human Genetics, 36: 129-140. ecs.wgtn.ac.nz/foswiki/pub/Groups/AI/PriceSEquation/Price_1972.pdfSmith, JM & Price, GR (1973). The logic of animal conflict. Nature, 246: 15-18. nature.com/articles/246015a0References:Harman, O (2010) The Price of Altruism: George Price and the Search for the Origins of Kindness. W.W. Norton, New York, NY. Rice, SH (2018) Evolution Theory: Mathematical and Conceptual Foundations. Sinauer Associates, Sutherland, MA. vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/6/18167211/evolution-natural-selection-altruism-george-priceroyalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2019.0361royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2019.0352independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/healthy-living/george-price-the-altruistic-man-who-died-trying-to-prove-selflessness-doesn-t-exist-a7237866.html#evolution #education
Sanford Fails Population Genetics | Book Review of Genetic Entropy Zach B. Hancock 2023-09-12 | John C. Sanford, retired Cornell geneticist, published "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome" in 2005 that claimed that all populations were winding to extinction due to genetic deterioration, and used this idea to argue for Young Earth Creationism. In this video, I provide a full review of Sanford's book, noting the many falsehoods, confusions, and failings in basic population genetics.Videos:youtu.be/UENteAE5lsQyoutu.be/p-xU7Je975gyoutu.be/tzI3DVI3zokyoutu.be/jDo3FRMFCW0Other great review: youtube.com/watch?v=8CZtjio4FAc&t=756sReferences:doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2009.01.002nature.com/articles/s41467-021-20911-3pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.41.3.144nature.com/articles/nrg2526sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519385701671academic.oup.com/genetics/article/165/2/589/6050250science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1106677science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aah5238science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1198878cambridge.org/core/journals/genetics-research/article/hitchhiking-effect-of-a-favourable-gene/918291A3B62BD50E1AE5C1F22165EF1Blink.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf02984069pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.94.16.8380pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.76.1.396academic.oup.com/evolut/article/54/4/1092/6757075academic.oup.com/genetics/article/159/2/893/6052468#evolution #creationism
Mutation | The Causes of Evolution | Ep. 4 Zach B. Hancock 2023-08-30 | In the fourth episode of the Causes of Evolution series, we're tackling mutation, perhaps the most misunderstood of all the mechanisms of evolution. We'll discuss it from the context of classic population genetics, but also in its historical role in the Modern Synthesis. In addition, we'll talk about the molecular biology of mutations as well as provide multiple examples of mutations generating novel genes. #evolution #education
Designed Diversity is Nonsense Zach B. Hancock 2023-08-22 | All variation in modern populations emerges as the result of mutation. Creationists, however, often contend that some of that variation was "designed" in the original created kinds. In this video, I explain why that idea is utter nonsense and undermines the basics of heredity. #evolution #creationism
Fitness & Natural Selection | The Causes of Evolution | Ep. 3 Zach B. Hancock 2023-08-10 | For the third episode of The Causes of Evolution, in which we take a deep, mathematical dive into the principles of evolutionary theory, we're reviewing the mechanism that started it all: natural selection. We'll discuss the concept of fitness and various types of selection, including deriving Wright's adaptive landscape and Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection. Previous episodes:Variation | Ep. 1 : youtu.be/lfGvkvTiqI8Nonrandom Mating | Ep. 2: youtu.be/519JfMbSl_A#evolution #science #darwin #education
Explaining Evolution (for Creationists) | 1K Subscriber Special Zach B. Hancock 2023-08-01 | Thank you all for helping me reach 1K subscribers! To celebrate, this video draws on all the major themes of the channel - evolution education, pseudoscience debunking, and the history of science - to tell the story of how I became an evolutionary biologist. In addition, I provide a comprehensive look into evolutionary theory, beginning from the philosophical foundations of science and working through evolution as both a process and a pattern. Throughout, I address several major creationist critiques, and show how microevolution is cleanly linked with macroevolution. #evolution #creationism #science
Whats in Your Genome? 90% is Junk! | Interview w/ Dr. Larry Moran Zach B. Hancock 2023-07-10 | How much of your genome is composed of non-functional, junk DNA? A new book by biochemist Laurence Moran, titled "What's in Your Genome?" answers this question with a resounding "90%". In this video, I interview Dr. Moran on the history of the junk DNA controversy, the ENCODE consortium, and we discuss the various lines of evidence for the ubiquity of junk DNA. Find his book here: amazon.com/Whats-Your-Genome-90-Junk/dp/148750859XHis blog, Sandwalk: sandwalk.blogspot.com
The Evolution of Genomic Complexity Zach B. Hancock 2023-07-04 | Genomes are incredibly complex biomolecules that themselves specify the instructions for staggeringly complicated protein complexes. A major question in evolutionary biology is: how did such complexity emerge? For nearly a century, it has been maintained that Darwinian selection is the main driver of genomic complexity. In this video, we explore alternatives. References and recommended further reading:nature.com/articles/nrg.2016.104link.springer.com/article/10.1007/PL00006540link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00239-021-09996-y.pdfsandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/09/constructive-neutral-evolution-cne.htmlnature.com/articles/386417a0science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1089370#evolution #genetics #genomics
Nonrandom Mating | The Causes of Evolution | Ep. 2 Zach B. Hancock 2023-07-01 | In the second installment of The Causes of Evolution series, we're diving into the forces of evolution. In this video, we'll derive Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium as the starting point for understanding evolution in Mendelian populations, and then we'll consider the first violation of HWE, nonrandom mating, and we'll examine how it changes (or doesn't!) the heritable characteristics of populations. #evolution #education #genetics The Causes of Evolution: Variation (youtu.be/lfGvkvTiqI8).
A Peoples History of Darwinism Zach B. Hancock 2023-06-13 | The prevailing narrative among biologists is that Darwin's theory of natural selection was readily accepted by the scientific community. In reality, Darwin's theory was hotly contested for over 40 years due to deep animosity between the "Darwinians" and the "Mendelians". In this video, I examine the social and political components of these disputes, noting that science is fundamentally a social institution that shapes and is shaped by the social and political environment in which it is performed. CORRECTION: I say "Dryer" instead of "Dyer" when talking about William Turner Thiselton-Dyer. #evolution #education #historyofscience #darwin #darwinismFurther reading:R.C. Lewontin, 1991. "Biology As Ideology". Harper Perennial, New York, NY.W. Provine, 1971. "Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics". University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Evolution's Trinity: youtube.com/watch?v=Gr9HpsRAImo
Variation | The Causes of Evolution | Ep. 1 Zach B. Hancock 2023-06-08 | Evolutionary biology is the most quantitative field in the life sciences, with rigorous mathematical models for understanding the mechanisms of population change. In this three-part series, I explain the core principles of evolution and demonstrate that, fundamentally, evolution is a statistical certainty that emerges from the nature of Mendelian inheritance. Part I: VariationPart II: ForcesPart III: Patterns#evolution #education #genetics Larry Moran's blog: sandwalk.blogspot.com
Jeffs Genomic Junk Zach B. Hancock 2023-06-05 | Is junk DNA a dead idea? According to creationist Jeff Tomkins, it is. In this video, I react to an interview that Tomkins gave to ICR on the topic of junk DNA in hopes of clarifying this important concept. Original video: youtube.com/watch?v=I0dPntyyCpU&t=23s#science #evolution #creationism Further reading:Graur, D. et al. (2013) On the Immortality of Television Sets: “Function” in the Human Genome According to the Evolution-Free Gospel of ENCODE. academic.oup.com/gbe/article/5/3/578/583411. Palazzo A. & Kejiou N. (2022) Non-Darwinian Molecular Biology. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8888898/. Doolittle, W. Ford (2013) Is junk DNA bunk? A critique of ENCODE. pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1221376110.
Whats the Cost of Saving the Worlds Beaches? Zach B. Hancock 2023-06-01 | Beaches are one of the most imperiled ecosystems on the planet due to anthropogenic climate change. Coastal communities have responded to ubiquitous erosion of beaches by various means, including dredging sand from offshore. Harmless right? Not exactly. #conservation #beach #short
Demystifying Evolutionary Biology: My Summer Plans Zach B. Hancock 2023-04-23 | Welcome to the channel! I'm Zach Hancock, an evolutionary biologist who specializes in population genetics, phylogenetics, and genome evolution. This summer, I'm embarking on a new project focusing on the spatial genetics of beach moles (small crustaceans that live on sandy beaches), and I'm bringing you along for the ride! I will be filming the whole study, from beginning to end, and this project will serve to demystify evolutionary biology for the general public. Hope you'll stick around for it! In the meantime, enjoy the other content on the channel that ranges from evolution education, pseudoscience debunking, and invertebrate systematics. Learn more about me at talkpopgen.org. Find me on twitter [at]zachbbionerd.Referencespewresearch.org/science/2022/02/15/americans-trust-in-scientists-other-groups-declinespewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-4-evolution-and-perceptions-of-scientific-consensusjournals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/09636625211035919
Evolutions Trinity: Fisher, Wright, and Haldane Zach B. Hancock 2023-04-11 | Between 1910-1932, three men from diverse scientific backgrounds would unify Darwinian natural selection with Mendelian inheritance: R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright. In this video, I review both their professional and personal lives. #evolution #history #philosophy #science Sources:Bodmer, W. et al. (2021) The outstanding scientist, R.A. Fisher: his views on eugenics and race. Heredity, 126(4): 565-576.Fisher, R.A. (1930) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Maynard Smith, J. (2017) The story of Haldane's last words. Web of Stories: youtube.com/watch?v=TZo4nxx4Ddw. Provine, W. (1971) The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics. Chicago University Press.Provine, W. (1997) Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Punnett, R.C. (1915) Mimicry of Butterflies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Richmond, M.L. (2006) The 'domestication' of heredity: The familial organization of geneticists at Cambridge University, 1895-1910. Journal of the History of Biology, 39: 565-605.Sarkar, S. (1992) A centenary reassessment of J.B.S. Haldane, 1892-1964. BioScience, 42(10): 777-785.Subramanian, S. (2019) A Dominant Character: The Radical Science and Restless Politics of J.B.S. Haldane. Simon and Schuster, India.Wright, S. (1931) Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics, 16(2): 97-159.
Is Biological Sex A Simple Binary? Zach B. Hancock 2023-03-26 | Richard Dawkins recently appeared on Fox News and told Piers Morgan that biological sex is a simple binary based on gametes. In this video, we discuss biological sex, challenging his simple definition and propose that intersexuality is a reality. Further, I show that statements such as Dawkins' have actual political and social consequences for human health. Resources for further reading:Ainsworth, C (2015) Sex redefined. Nature, 518: 288-291. nature.com/articles/518288a.Zeeman, L & Aranda K (2020) A systematic review of the health and healthcare inequalities for people with intersex variance. International Journal of Enivronmental and Public Health, 17(18): 6533. mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6533.Arboleda VA, Sandberg DE, Vilain E (2014) DSDs: genetics, underlying pathologies, and psychosexual differentiation. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 10: 603-615. nature.com/articles/nrendo.2014.130.Intersex Society of America: isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex/.
Were ERVs Created? Zach B. Hancock 2023-03-23 | Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) have become a common theme of discussion in the creation vs. evolution debates. In this video, I address a specific model proposed by Donny Budinski (@StandingForTruthMinistries), that fixed ERVs represent designed DNA units while polymorphic ones may be viewed as actual endogenized viruses.For more on genomic parasites: youtube.com/watch?v=ve-mE4ezU6M&t=991sThe two SFT videos referenced: youtube.com/watch?v=b4wjQfc2hH8&t=138syoutube.com/watch?v=zJH5gQNZ17U
Are Phylogenies Just Lines On Paper? Zach B. Hancock 2023-03-21 | Are phylogenies really just lines on paper that a bunch of knuckleheaded scientists made up? Or do they have a rigorous statistical underpinning that is far more advanced than any creationist realizes? In this video, I explain in a three-tiered approach how phylogenies are built starting at a basic level and adding complexity over successive tiers. I demonstrate how statistical phylogenetics works, including how competing models can be explicitly evaluated, all with an emphasis on divergence-time dating and molecular clocks. #evolution #creationsim #phylogenetics #statistics
Evolution of the Mutation Rate Zach B. Hancock 2023-03-12 | Why does the mutation rate vary across organisms? In this video, I review a recent paper exploring the evolution of the germline mutation rate in vertebrates and provide explanations for the patterns that they find. Bergeron et al. (2023) Evolution of the germline mutation rate across vertebrates. Nature, 615: 285-291. nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05752-y
Genetic Entropy (Again): Response to SFT & Chris Rupe Zach B. Hancock 2023-03-04 | Genetic entropy - the gift that keeps on giving. In this video, I review a recent article by Donny (@StandingForTruthMinistries) and Christopher Rupe. I go over the historical background to the concept of genetic load, why it conflicts with their thesis, and the limitations of Kondrashov's 1995 model. We discuss Mendel's Accountant, and end with a review of my previous video on the fatal flaws of genetic entropy. #evolution #creationism #geneticentropyFatal Flaws of Genetic Entropy: youtube.com/watch?v=P2o_KC7sc98&t=1032s
My Actual Science! - Ecology & Evolution Seminar at UMich Zach B. Hancock 2023-02-20 | Here's the seminar that I gave on 2/14 to the EEB Department at UMich. There were some technical difficulties in the beginning, so you'll see pieces of it cut out. Also, the audio quality is not very good, so you might need to turn it up some and there's a weird whirring noise? I don't know. Anyway, it is what it is. Hope you enjoy!
Wondrous Geometrical Protists (Rhizaria - Evolution of the Invertebrates - Episode 4) Zach B. Hancock 2023-02-19 | Welcome back to the Evolution of the Invertebrates series! Today, we're finishing the SAR Supergroup with the Rhizaria, amazing protists that include the Foraminifera and Radiolaria, two of the most visually stunning groups of protists. #Evolution #protozoa #foraminiferaLast episode: youtube.com/watch?v=chhbAFzE9yY&list=PLXynvQsdTP1Sfmceioe3Telw2x3FPtKxE&index=1Full playlist: youtube.com/watch?v=eDkUaa9bxKY&list=PLXynvQsdTP1Sfmceioe3Telw2x3FPtKxE&index=4
Why Biological Race Isnt Real Zach B. Hancock 2023-02-16 | In this video, I debunk the myth of "race realism" - the white supremacist idea that culturally-defined races are actual biological entities that can be used to separate people into discrete clusters. This was the notion of race that was held by the Buffalo shooter in 2022 that murdered 10 black people at a Tops supermarket. Despite biologists recognizing that race is a social and cultural construct for over 40 years, much of the general public still thinks that there exists real biological differences between races. I explain why these differences simply don't exist. Excellent articles for further reading:Carlson et al. (2022) Counter the weaponization of genetics research by extremists. Nature: nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03252-z.Lewis et al. (2022) Getting genetic ancestry right for science and society. Science, science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abm7530?casa_token=5j1OZraGJlsAAAAA%3Ai5AHK_ct7ATcFC4YP1p9rTjpQ09f9OmlDqoVjJBvhgGQEoEvV6jgInXAY8HjnaEWN8HJTjXvm4JLaQ.
Most Human Evolution Wasnt Adaptive Zach B. Hancock 2023-02-10 | In this video, I review an excellent paper hot-off-the-press by paleoanthropologists Lauren Schroeder and Rebecca Ackermann in the Journal of Human Evolution. In this paper, they discuss why we need to move beyond simple adaptationist storytelling and towards a rigorous, statistical evaluation of the evolutionary forces shaping human phenotypic variation. And, when we use statistical approaches, we find that most human evolution is non-adaptive, explained best by genetic drift and gene flow. #evolution #humanevolutionSchroeder L & Ackermann RR (2023). Moving beyond the adaptationist paradigm for human evolution, and why it matters. Journal of Human Evolution, 174: 103296. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248422001567
The Fatal Flaws of Genetic Entropy Zach B. Hancock 2023-02-02 | Inspired by a recent podcast debate (linked below), I decided to throw together a presentation on the creationist idea of "genetic entropy". Here, I lay out three flaws: fundamental, mathematical, and mechanistic. I provide empirical, simulation, and theoretical studies to show that the concept of genetic entropy is fatally flawed. #evolution #creationism #geneticentropySFT podcast debate: youtube.com/watch?v=5U792L6Fe6E
Punctuated Equilibrium: Its Not What You Think Zach B. Hancock 2023-02-01 | Few concepts in the history of evolutionary biology are as misunderstood and misapplied as Gould and Eldredge's theory of punctuated equilibrium. In this video, I explain what it meant originally, the claims that it made, and ultimately why it's rejected today. Further reading:See our paper on this topic that appeared in the 75th Anniversary of the journal Evolution: academic.oup.com/evolut/article/75/6/1244/6881942Which was blogged about by Jerry Coyne!: whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/06/13/punctuated-equilibrium-is-dead-long-live-the-modern-synthesis#evolution #biology #historyofscience
Evolution of the Invertebrates, Ep. 3: Alveolates (SAR Supergroup, contd) Zach B. Hancock 2023-01-24 | The Evolution of the Invertebrates series continues with the SAR Supergroup in Episode 3, focusing on the Alveolata. We discuss the ciliates, dinoflagellates, and the apicomplexans. Episode 1: youtu.be/zxn3ntbWrJEEpisode 2: youtu.be/RdHbEIVdefM
Evolution of Barnacles - Answering Kent Hovinds Challenge Zach B. Hancock 2023-01-16 | The creationist Kent Hovind challenged anyone that accepts evolution to explain how a barnacle could evolve naturally. In this video, I take-up the challenge by first explaining the basics of evolution, review the immense diversity of the cirripeds, and propose and evolutionary model and provide support for it. Finally, I ramble on at the end about the philosophy of science and the futility of a "creationism vs. evolution" controversy.
Evolution of the Invertebrates, Ep. 2: SAR Supergroup (Stramenopiles) Zach B. Hancock 2023-01-13 | Welcome back to the EotI series! In this episode, we review protozoan locomotion and introduce the Stramenopiles, a diverse member of the SAR supergroup that includes several groups of algae, diatoms, and water molds. Next week, we'll move on to the Alveolata (which includes ciliates, dinoflagellates, and apicomplexans) and the Rhizarians (includes the foraminiferans and radiolarians). Episode 1: youtube.com/watch?v=zxn3ntbWrJE
Your Genomic Parasites Zach B. Hancock 2023-01-07 | The majority of your genome is composed of parasites - including various types of transposons and viruses. In this video, I review the different types of parasitic DNA, discuss their disease-causing effects on the host, review the population genetics of transposons, and discuss how they're used for phylogenetic inference.
Evolution of the Invertebrates, Ep. 1: The Eukaryotic Cell Zach B. Hancock 2023-01-03 | Episode 1 of the Evolution of the Invertebrates (EotI) is on the origin and evolution of the eukaryotic cell, evolutionary constraints, and the phylogenetic diversity of the protozoa. Next week (Episode 2) we will be covering locomotion in the protozoa and the SAR supergroup.
Evolution of the Invertebrates - New Year, New Series Zach B. Hancock 2022-12-31 | For the New Years, I am starting a new series that will guide us through the evolution of the invertebrates - starting with the protozoans and working our way through all the major metazoan phyla.
Out of Africa (Not Babel) - Refuting Carter & friends Zach B. Hancock 2022-12-29 | The Out of Africa hypothesis is the most well-supported model of human population migration among biologists, but it clashes with a literal reading of the book of Genesis. In this video, I review the Out of Africa hypothesis and pit it against Rob Carter, Stephen Lee, and John Sanford's 2018 paper that proposes an "Out of Babel". I use simulations and empirically reconstruct the human mtDNA phylogeny to show you how Carter and friends are misinterpreting their phylogenies, and how ultimately the human data matches perfectly with simulations assuming a population bottleneck in the Out of Africa groups. PS: I'm struggling with a bit of the sniffles, so my voice here is weird. You know me by now, you get what you paid for.
Creationist Conspiracy: Nefarious Motives Zach B. Hancock 2022-12-15 | There exists a subset of creationists who claim that evolutionary biologists are falsifying data to fit their ideology, are actively suppressing data that doesn't fit into evolution, and that we're motivated by money. This is a very serious accusation. In this video, I explain why the creationist conspiracy theory that we have "nefarious motives" for studying evolution is absolutely absurd and insulting. I begin by explaining the typical journey of a research scientist; next, I discuss salaries and research grants; I conclude with the intellectual laziness of this conspiracy theory.
The Human Genetic Load Zach B. Hancock 2022-12-11 | Has modern medicine and family planning led to a dangerous accumulation of deleterious mutations in humans that will eventually lead to our extinction? Answer: No.In this video, I provide the history of the concept of genetic load (including it's troubling eugenics past), give the basic population genetic theory as applied to functionality in the human genome, and explain the context dependence of mutational fitness effects. PS: I say I'm going to give Roth & Wakeley the last word and then just keep talking lol....
Humans & Species Concepts: Responding to Comments Zach B. Hancock 2022-12-07 | In this video, I respond to 2 of the most common comments on my video "Neanderthals were not humans" (linked below): 1) Homo means "human" so neanderthals were humans and 2) humans and neanderthals interbred so were the same species. This video is more of a rant than anything educational, but if you are interested in species concepts you might find some interesting tidbits. Original video: youtube.com/watch?v=Ky0qm6mHQZo&t=1s
Evolution Happy Hour with Emma Lehmberg Zach B. Hancock 2022-12-02 | Evolution Happy Hour is a series of casual interviews with fellow evolutionary biologists where we chat candidly about academia, research, graduate school, etc. In this video, I'm interviewing the phylogeneticist Emma Lehmberg, a PhD candidate at Texas A&M University. We chat about her academic journey, genome sequencing, the culture of academia and the nature of being a "graduate student", and misconceptions the general public has about the nature of science. Hope you enjoy! WARNING: Adult language.
Is Most Evolution Random?: The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution Zach B. Hancock 2022-11-24 | Since 1859, there has only been one true contender to the supremacy of Darwin's mechanism of natural selection. This video reviews the history and concepts of the neutral theory of molecular evolution, which made the radical claim that most evolutionary change at the molecular level was not due to natural selection, but genetic drift. WARNING: This video is dense, even after I cut-out some of the more in-depth walkthroughs of the math. It watches more like a podcast than a video. So, I apologize for how dense it is, hopefully it's not too boring; I clearly got too excited and tried to cram in way too much in one video. If you have any questions, especially about the math that I glossed over for time, please let me know in the comments and I'd be happy to walk you through it. Thank so much for being here, and I hope you enjoyed the video.
Cheddar Man: An Ancestor of All of Us? Zach B. Hancock 2022-11-19 | Could the ancient human specimen known as Cheddar Man be an ancestor to all of us? In this video, I review the concept of the "identical ancestor point", and show that if Cheddar Man left any descendants at all to the modern day, then he is an ancestor to all of us. Thanks to subscriber Adri for suggesting this topic!EDIT: I say the specimen was discovered in "Cheddar Grove" - this is incorrect, it was actually Gough's Cave in Cheddar Gorge. Thanks to Paul 222 for fact-checking me here!
Reviewing my discussion with David McQueen Zach B. Hancock 2022-11-02 | A bit of a fireside chat going over my recent discussion with creationist David McQueen on SFT. We talk a bit of parsimony and philosophy of science.
Evolution in Light of Population Genetics: Pt. I Zach B. Hancock 2022-10-14 | Welcome to the "Evolution in Light of Population Genetics" series! This is the introduction video in which we will be discussing the goals of the series and the fundamental principle of population genetics: Hardy-Weinberg.
Who Was Mitochondrial Eve & Who Will She Be Next? Zach B. Hancock 2022-10-08 | The term "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam" are exceptionally misleading and have been interpreted incorrectly in creationist literature. In this video, I explain why "mitochondrial Eve" cannot be used to infer the origin of humans, nor is this a fixed person but a shifting target due to the stochastic effects of drift. Thought ? from the video: Is lineage 8 more fit? What does "fitness" mean in an evolutionary context? Share your thoughts!
