YouTube demonetizing backfire. Mark Ruffalo facing criticism over casting choice. Mother beats son to death claiming religious freedom. Rapid evolution of Tasmanian Devil. LAPD outlaws cops from shooting at moving cars. US district bans marijuana license owners from buying guns.
Comments
Resistance does not develop because of something like devil face cancer, it’s a resistance that becomes more common because everything else dies. Sure I guess it’s a win for evolution but any mass extinction is…
Also, this isn’t just one of the ways that evolution works, it is the only way. Random mutations with some natural selection is evolution. I understand that you guys are not scientists but I can’t help but point that out. It seems like some people have a near magical perspective of how evolution works.
“Tasmanian Devil don’t care, Tasmanian Devil don’t give a shit.”
the issue really is cenk that trans people have been stereotyped by hollywood forever ..its not the 1200’s we dont have only men acting in america…women do as well …there is no reason to have a man playing a trans woman …do u know why there are not a lot of tgirls in hollywood stardom because they dont hire them ..because they wanna use super masculine men that are over 6 ft tall and cg huge tits on em and super femmy hair and have them pump up- those arms to be more muscular …
they all do it…thats why there are next to no tgirls because they dont wanna portray transwomen correctly ..they wanna push a stereotype ….
its no different than white people painting their faces black to play black people in shows because black people cant be on tv…u wanna cast a tgirl fucking hire one …im sick of them pushing stereotypes on the community there is a reason everyones go to on tgirls is a 6 ft tall super muscular manly looking dude ina dress…because thats what hollywood wants people to think …
so fucking disgusting but i guess they get your pass of innocence …normally i think you guys are on point but to not even point out the way we are stereotyped and demonized on tv….i thought better of mark ruffalo
Tasmanian Devil story sounds to vindicate Steven Jay Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium. Love it!
A few thoughts about the Tasmanian Devil story:
To answer the question posited by Ana on whether the sudden resistance to face cancer in Tasmanian Devil populations was a result of inherent genetic potential or due to de novo mutations within the genome, this is from the original publication in Nature Communications by Epstein et al. (2016):
“Taken together, our results suggest that there has been a substantial genomic response in very few generations (∼4 in Narawntapu and West Pencil Pine; ∼6 in Freycinet based on a 2-year generation time6,8), since arrival of DFTD…The extremely recent appearance of the disease means that selection most likely acts on standing genetic variation rather than on new mutations.”
Thus, alleles (versions of a gene) that conferred cancer resistance were already present in the Tasmanian Devil genome, and natural selection pressures brought on by the disease caused them to be highly selected for. Interestingly the authors discuss how identical regions and genes in other species (including dogs) have responded similarly to related cancers.
Now, a philosophical response to the punctuated equilibrium (PE) comment. The Tasmanian Devil story doesn’t really support Gould’s theory for several reasons. First of all, Gould never really spoke about molecular evolution, because he was a paleontologist, so PE doesn’t really relate to this story at all. Secondly, the central tenet of PE is that speciation occurs rapidly in episodic leaps, as opposed to gradually via small incremental changes. Gould approached this from a macroevolutionary perspective, prompted mainly by his observation that there did not appear to be many “transitional” fossils in the fossil record (which we’re increasingly realizing, is not true as we continue to discover new fossils). If this were a case of PE, the end result would be that isolation of various Tasmanian Devil populations would invariably lead to a speciation event via macro-evolutionary processes.
Here we merely have a case of strong positive selection resulting in rapid adaptation of a species to novel environmental pressures. The Tasmanian Devil is still the Tasmanian Devil, no new species here. In fact if you really think about it, we have small (literally microscopic) changes in several genes (5-7) resulting in resistance to a disease, and consequently the persistence of the same species via micro, not macro, evolutionary processes.
Furthermore, the main reason Gould’s theory of PE has largely been abandoned by modern evolutionary biologists is due to a central fallacy within his argument. PE posits that speciation occurs when a population of species becomes isolated over time, mutates, and then becomes a new species. This argument hinges on two beliefs: 1.) that major mutations are more likely to become fixed in populations than small ones and 2.) that speciation is more likely to occur when populations are small. First, major, phenotype-altering mutations in the genome are more likely to be deleterious then favorable, so the underlying mechanism of PE just doesn’t make sense. Second, and more importantly, you can’t get increases in genetic diversity (and ultimately species diversity) from small, isolated populations, as small populations tend to lead to genetic bottlenecks and ultimately drastic decreases in genetic diversity.
Anna evolution do not need a long time to occur. One of the version claim a jump evolution which mean a change can happens over one or few generation. New variety (mutation) show up and breed in a fast way taking over niche of the old version of a species. So it take 10 year to replace susceptible “faulty” version like in devils case instead 10 millions like most people believe.
TYT’s Aaron Wysock tweeted yesterday that he was dealing with over 500 videos on the TYT channel that had been demonetized, but that tweet seems to have been taken down. This suggests to me that TYT may be in the process of negotiating with Youtube.
I’m not necessarily opposed to such deal-cutting, but my first concern (and that of most Members IMO) is whether Youtube/Google is having an impact on TYT’s editorial direction. If Youtube is being appeased by TYT in any shape or form in order to raise or protect the advertising revenue, I think that the Members should be openly informed about it, once the negotations have concluded.
A few things about the devils story:
-Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations, obviously that time is shorter with animals, which reproduce more frequently like the devils. Keep in mind, small evolutionary changes happen all the time but this doesn’t amount to a species change. That takes significantly longer if it happens with a particular species. Adaptation via natural selection can be quick. A disease comes and causes significant harm in populations and individuals, which have resistance or in this case gain resistance via random mutations to the disease , survive and reproduce. Accumulated genetic changes via natural selection causes evolution to happen in long stretches of time.
-Devils would have gone extinct only “in the wild” but there are several disease-free captive breeding programs in place to stop them going extinct totally. So even if this disease killed every single devil in the wild, they would still be around due ti human interference.
-The “in your face God” part of the story was funny but not everybody, who believes in some sort of God also believes in the other stuff like direct creation, rib of a man etc. You can believe in God and still appreciate the wonders that science uncovers. Maybe next time do it like “In your face literal understanding of the Abrahamic God”. ;)
-Scientific stories are great to have, a little more research is appreciated though.
Ana’s argument on Mark Ruffalo’s choosing an non-transgender actor is not completely valid since she forgot that the lad that was chosen to play the main role is still an LGBT community member, so it is reasonable to expect that he has experienced in his real life some/most of the hardships that transgenders face. Of course, it differs from case to case and, ideally, if a transgender actor would be chosen from very beginning it would be more fair, but the difference is not as stark as some critiques say.
You are so right about this but I have to point out one point. If you’ve ever looked into Matt Bomer’s eyes you would realize that this dude could get away with anything and has likely never been hassled about anything in his life.
I love that Matt has been cast for this role because he is an amazing actor. Did people complain about Jerod Leto’s role or did they let it slide? Personally I would love to see Lisa Limbaugh spank this role but Matt is one of the best actors of our time so let him do his thing.
I am not tracking this issue that much, but my guess that Leto’s story was earlier, and the transgender community had no voice that is as noticeable then as it has now, so there probably was no outcry.
So if harm is the line of religious freedom, why is circumcision still fine and dandy in this country? It’s a barbaric practice of genital mutilation that this society turns a blind eye to. I’d like to hear TYT’s opinions on this.
I love the show, and the Unbiased, Funny, Secular talk you guys bring to the world. I would like to make a suggestion as a Proud TYT member and supporter of WolfPac . Would someone let me know if you have herd of Jenifer Briney? She does this great show called Congressionaldish. Her material needs to be reiterated to your audience. She calls out every slimy backyard /playground drug deal that happens right in our face, in Congress. She explains the good stuff too, but that comes few and far between. Just let me know if you have herd of her.
heard*
Cenk should watch Tropic Thunder.
Wow that blows about the demonitization.. well im glad I became a member, will continue to spread the word about this network