Hi I presume you are a geologist, explanation is great. Right now we are planning a large drilling campaign in the border area of Belgium, Netherlands and Germany. This is done to make a detailed 3D-map of this area for the Einstein Telescope (huge subsurface gravitational wave observatory to study colliding stars, black holes et cetera) We already drilled three times to the contact between the late Devonian (Famennian) and Carboniferous, but in those cases with a large hiatus in geology 324 MYr jumped to 360 MYr. We also saw interesting layering in the Famennian stage 370-360 Myr, we just didn't reach 359,2 MYr yet which was the End of the Devonian age. But we will also drill Frasnian age layers which was the first pulse. There might even be 3 pulses that could be found in those stages. KR Bjorn
After of all this such long story, I thought we’re gonna ending up with an invitation for her asking her to participate of the project. Why you had to mention all this unnecessary stuff? I mean, good for you if you feel happy and proud, but in science almost nobody cares about what other people are doing, except their own researches
Wonderful summary of the potential causative events leading to the Devonian extinctions. I was particularly intrigued by the botanical theories. You do such a wonderful job on all these videos especially considering the pressures of a Phd dissertation and internships. I salute you.
Thank you so much! I am predicting that I will start posting less often once I'm really in the thick of writing haha, but right now it's a doable balance, especially because I really enjoy doing these videos so it's a nice break from my other work :)
Very interesting video! I learned a lot. An ice age when glaciers reached within 30 degrees of the equator? In the northern hemisphere, that’s further south than El Paso, all the way to Houston. Could you imagine looking outside and seeing a glacier covering Texas? 😳
I was surprised to find that so much of the gneiss in New England was actually an accumulation of volcanic ash from the Ordovician. When you consider the benefits that volcanic ash has on a resurgence of plant life, I wonder what is more important in the production of soil? Having glaciers grinding down some of the relief like a giant sheet of sandpaper was probably more effective than waiting for weak acids to crumble near insoluble rocks. I have to wonder what the slow evolution of mulch had on determining what food plants would evolve and sustain large herbivores. The Ammonoosuc Volcanics were part of a huge mountain system and it is hard to believe that chemical means alone would shrink the Appalachians to their present size.
Another excellent video. I just took a look at your backlist of video titles. So so so many I want to watch; I feel like a kid at Christmas. I’ll have to make time to slowly go thru them. I promise not to comment on old videos though. :)
Thanks again Chris! The comment about feeling like a kid on Christmas made my day :) And please do comment on the old ones if you have any input or questions! I actually love it when I get comments on my old videos ;D
Very good, thank you. As a generalisation one might wonder if mass extinctions are always multi-factorial. The biosphere needs both a stressor to become vulnerable to further insults and then for those insults to happen.
I would argue major extinction events generally require multiple compounding factors, this is something I actually talk a lot more about in my extinction video which is about extinction in general and the causes for background versus mass extinctions: czcams.com/video/enPQE0leoJw/video.html ;)
Amazing video and so much interesting content that not only puts what the current theory is, which I've found many channels that might put out scientific information, but issues with the theory, and potential, though unyet proven theories to get around them (this is how things should be, it's good science works, it's an ever changing field with new discoveries being made all the time). I've only just found your channel so will be binge watching your other videos (I have already watched a few), but you present the information in such a clear and concise way that it's easy to follow, always expanding on terminology that people might not know, which I think is great. I just wanted to drop a message to say thank you for such great videos (I'm from a more physics and astronomy interest background but love hearing about all science), and I hope the numbers of people subscribing to your channel continues to climb, and I look forward to future videos.
Thank you so much for the kind words! So glad you found my channel and are enjoying the videos! If you ever want to suggest a topic for a future video, just let me know ;)
Didn't Gondwanaland drift fairly close to the South Pole during this period, giving massive glaciers a perch to build and spread out from? I recall reading somewhere that this might have contributed to the extreme glaciation event that happened at the end of this period. If there hadn't been so much land that close to the South Pole, the glaciers couldn't have been as extensive. Something similar may have contributed to our more recent Ice Age, which I guess technically we're still in. A bunch of land (Antarctica) is available at the South Pole for glaciers to build up on, glaciers that would otherwise be incapable of forming in the open ocean. There's also quite a lot of land - Canada, Russia, Northern Europe, Alaska, Greenland - clustered fairly near the North Pole, meaning that once the climate cools sufficiently, massive glaciers can form in the Northern Hemisphere as well. Without Antarctica, and if the continents more closely hugged the equator, it would be far more difficult for an Ice Age to develop and persist.
Yep, this actually happened just before the Devonian in the late Ordovician (so it was actually the cause for the Ordovician extinctions, which I talk about in that video: czcams.com/video/DODZo8EgLg8/video.html). I think it contributed to the Devonian glaciation, but it wasn't the main driver for the onset of climate change since it was already positioned theres. And you are also right about the modern ice age, as soon as continental landmasses became isolated near the poles, cooling of the poles greatly increased because the waters circulated around just the poles getting colder and colder. Before Antarctica was isolated at the S pole, when Austrailia, India, and S America were still attached, it remained relatively warm because the water was too warm since it's circulation pattern was different, I actually talk about this in another video if you want to check it out: czcams.com/video/_VpzDyNY_wI/video.html haha sorry to throw so many videos at you, I just feel as though you are mentioning exactly the things I cover in those, so you may be interested :) Also you sound like the kind of person I should have watch those videos because you may be able to provide more insight into the processes or even correct something I say :) Anyway, thanks for the comment! ;D
Hi Geo Girl :) May I ask what is your background? For someone who appears to be so young, you have a lot of knowledge. Do you have a degree(s)? If so, where from? Until he went off to college, we had a young man at the NHSM, who was that way too. Besides working with fossils, I also do my best to keep up with the ongoing research on extinction and climate events, which often seen to be related: The importance being that after extinction events, there’s a burst of evolution to fill various niches. What I especially like about this presentation, is that you explain all the potential causes of the Late Devonian Extinction. Even though people might favor one cause over another, I feel that it’s important to be aware of all possibilities. I say that in part because so much of what we thought we knew about Earth’s past in the 1950-60s, has changed. I’ve felt for a number of years that concerning Historical Geology, we are living in a golden age of discovery: in part due to the advent of computers, and also the development of new equipment and techniques that allow us to see more detail in the geologic record then ever before.
It's funny you ask all these questions now, I am actually currently working on a video explaining who I am for those of you who are new to my channel :) But in short, my name is Rachel and I am currently a PhD student at the University of Texas at El Paso studying marine biogeochemistry (specifically, I study how trace metal signatures are preserved in the rock record and what they can tell us about Earth's past conditions). I have my bachelors degree in geology (with chemistry minor) from the University of Texas at Arlington, and I am going straight from my bachelors to phd (I don't have my masters). I didn't take any time off between my bachelors and starting my PhD so that may be why I seem so young ;) I am now going on my fourth year as a PhD student and hope to graduate in the next few semesters! ;D Thanks for the comment and kind words. I too like it best when people present all the options and possibilities so I try my hardest to include everything I am aware of :)
I've heard that the development of wood as a material contributed to the devonian extinction as well, since nothing had yet evolved to break it down, woody plants became a massive carbon sink. Have you seen anything relating to this hypothesis? I find it interesting as an example of how nature adapts to break down complex materials, and how that might relate to the current plastic crisis. If there's more plastic in the ocean than fish biomass, something will eventually come along and learn how to break it down.
Thanks, seems that a combination of factors contributed to the Devonian Extinction. The mysteries of whether or not a gamma ray burster contributed to it would require first proving the burster occurred and then calculating timescales in relation to computer models of how long fauna and flora had to adapt through evolution of multiple generations. If a burster occurred when the dramatic increase in plant sizes from several feet tall to 70 feet tall and to when the plants expanded due to seeds into previously barren areas. Then there may have been a slow enough transition for 70 percent (arbitrary thought experiment amount) of the faunal species to go extinct, but the addition of a Gamma Ray burster increased it to 90 percent for example. Seems these major changes would be sufficient to cause extinction without the Hypernova but the hypernova is such an interesting idea that simple proving that it left its mark on our planet is intriguing,
Such an amazing series! Looks like you produce talks as things catch your fancy. But is there a site where one can view the presentations in (geologic) chronologic order? (Sorry, this elderly professor prefers that sort of organization.)
I found this very interesting Rachel, thanks for making it. BTW I watched your entire previous video but didn’t leave a comment. As always I ❤️ GEO GIRL
Yet another great video. I liked the explanation of how weathering can lead to changes in the ecosystem and climate. Does UV light increase whenever there is glaciation in lower latitudes due to how much snow reflects sunlight (like how skiers get sunburned because the sun reflects off all the white snow)?
Thanks so much! I don't think the amount of UV light reaching Earth's surface increases because glaciation does not degrade ozone, but you're right that the dose of sun and UV light would increase just because of the reflection off the white surface :)
I never did trust those trees. Interesting how many rocks are named after Celtic British tribes, Ordovices, Silures, Dumnoni (Devon derives it’s name from them). Ironic that they were Iron Age not Stone Age.
Thanks for this video. It was especially interesting for me as I happen to live in a region where we have both Middle/Upper Devonian limestone from an ancient coral reef (containing a lot of fossilized Favosites corals) and post Kellwasser event shales (Kellwasser event: the first of the two extinction pulses) which are devoid of any fossils. BTW: The german Wikipedia names the Woodleigh impact crater in Australia as one possible cause for the extinction as it was of the right age (364 mya +/- 8 mya) and still a bit smaller than the asteroid from the K-PG boundary but not by much. What do you think?
lol at about 6:00, in the diagram at the lower right, in the section that says "Killing animals that rely on O2" the only thing below the algae is the little picture of Rachel.
Yes! This is a very important point. I think a lot of people assume the chemical reservoirs for the major elements (the atmosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere, etc) are all in equilibrium all the time, but earth is characteristically out of equilibrium all th e time which drives these differences and also creates the energy for life! :) So yes, absolutely the deep oceans and the atmosphere are not always in perfect balance (in fact, most often in earth's history they've been completely out of balance with the deep ocean containing a lack of oxygen; only recently on modern earth have the oceans been relatively fully oxygenated). :)
It was very informative and useful video! I've wanted to figure out Late Devonian Extinction Events for a very long time and I'm very glad that I've found this video. Thank you very much!
Excellent palaeo show! Engaging and rich in scientific info. BTW low CO2 can cause ocean anoxia in another way (other than eutrophication from soils). CO2 is linked to ventilation - carrying of O2 down to the ocean floor, connected with plankton photosynthesis. [Marcantonio F et al. Sci Rep 10, 6606 (2020).]
The uv damage along with that cooling might make sense if a volcanic eruption or impact sent large amounts of both sulfur dioxide and some chlorine compound into the stratosphere at the same time. As I recall it's the chlorine in CFCs that damaged the ozone layer.
Was the organic/nitrogen-rich runoff into the oceans during the Devonian period greater than that which occurs today? I would have thought that current runoff would be greater, since the rocks and soil are presumably even more broken down that they were during the Devonian, as well as man-made nitrogen run-off.
Another very informative video!!!! Ive been binge watching!!! I really like how you present all the info!!! My main interest is when you talk more about the ice ages.
Thanks so much! I am so happy that you've been enjoying my content :D If there are ever any topics or specific ice age events that I haven't covered and you'd like me to discuss just let me know! ;)
@@GEOGIRL One thing that always confuses me is you and others talk about the cooling events and glaciation and how much dryer the Earth gets. Now ive seen Antarctica is considered a desert. So, how do the glaciers actually grow? If places like Antarctica are a desert id assume not much snow. And in the northern hemisphere when glaciers were up to 2 miles deep where did all the actual moisture come from? What would the actual process be to produce the massive glaciers. I hope my laymen thoughts are not too confusing...hahaha
@@JasonKale What a great question! Trust me, your thoughts make complete sense, I wondered this for a long time too! The glaciers actually do grow from snow because warm air from the equator migrates to the poles where it then cools down and sinks and eventually falls to the ground as snow. The snow is then compacted into something called 'fern' then it eventually becomes solid ice and the friction at the bottom of the ice sheet or glacier creates heat which allows some water to melt and the glacier to move (although these are all VERY slow processes). I actually havea video about glacial environments and I talk in it about how glaciers form if you're interested: czcams.com/video/1wroG2YkLRo/video.html ;) You are right, however, that as a whole the globe becomes a lot drier during ice ages and glaciations and its just because the cooler oceans undergo less evaporation than when the globe is warmer, and less evaporation also means less precipitation. During some intense glacial periods ice sheets can form by the ocean directly freezing. It is only continental ice sheets and glaciers that require snow. Anyway, hope that makes a bit more sense! And hope you enjoy the glacier video ;)
Geo Girl, I love all your videos. This one was fantastic. You're so logical and well organized. Very impressive. I loved the slide that showed how evolution went from gill arches to eventually jaws. I also really admire how you respond to counterpoints and detractors. You are very politic. It's a skill that will take you great places. Jaws. 🦴 Denticles. 🦷 Lungs. 🫁 And of course your boy, Tictaalik🦎. 😘
It's alright now, I managed to fix the problem. It was in my cache for Firefox AND Chronic for CZcams. I can view your videos normally now. - Aha, I saw that mistake you meant now. "Ordi" instead of "Ordo" - similar to me when I want to write "Cretatious" instead of "Cretaceous". I think I also may have made out the antipode for the Hawaiian hotspot in the Pacific Tectonic Plate..
Oh, I have no idea. I have never actively done anything to make that the case, but I don't know whether youtube has something about their videos where they make that happen. I am so sorry, I wish I could help, but I have never used an ad blocker so I am not sure how it works or why it would interfere :( I hope it starts to work! :)
Lovely presentation! I'm not sure about the supernova hypothesis though. Supernovae close enough to influence earth's biota have probably been occurring throughout Earth's history, so why just one of the Big 5 extinction events?
Hi! Supernovae occur when stars around 8-10+ solar masses run out of fuel in their iron core. These higher mass stars are much less common than lower mass stars like our sun & their lives are much shorter. There's a lower likelihood of a higher mass star being in your backyard (especially in our section of the galaxy since we're kind of far from many of the star forming regions), so there's a lower likelihood of a supernova explosion in your backyard. The solar system formed in a star forming region of some sort around 4.5-5 Gya, so higher mass stars in that region died ages ago, so we're not really near (astronomically speaking) anything that's likely to go kablooey anytime soon. Thank goodness. 😬 However, a lower chance isn't a non-zero chance, so there's a possibility that a supernova could be implicated in one or more of Earth's past extinction events. There's a far smaller chance of Earth getting hit by an asteroid now than 3.5-4 Gya, but it can still happen. (I hate those stupid articles which claim, "Asteroid the size of the Empire State building is barreling towards Earth on Tuesday!!!" when really, it's not going to even come within the Moon's orbit.)
@@kerriemckinstry-jett8625 Thanks for the very informative update/explanation. I share your frustration with the current trend to report on asteroids that are zooming by somewhere vaguely in our orbit. Whoever is responsible for the news releases that yield these stupid articles should be ashamed.
@@caspasesumo No problem! Astronomy is my main subject & is honestly my favorite one to teach. I also teach physics & a bit of chemistry & geology (nowhere near the scale of Geo Girl's videos, though). Articles with sensational headlines are among my pet peeves as a teacher!
Wow Thanks for sharing your astronomy knowledge Kerrie! Very helpful and interesting! And yes, hahaha I hate the catchy titles in regular news articles!! Even when the article itself explains the science correctly, people get the wrong idea from the titles and then don't read the article itself!
@@GEOGIRL Hi! No problem! I teach astronomy (I'm actually going to be teaching the first class of the semester for one of my astro classes later today), so this is fun for me. Thank you for the geology videos! They're fun & educational! 🙂
Is there a video explaining how ice caps during icehouse periods cover large amount of one side but the other is not. Does this have to do with the fact theres no large continent at the northpoel
Well done, but permit me to raise my hand for a question. The process of building soil would have taken millions of years, and ocean microorganisms would have had plenty of time to adapt to a more nutrient dense environment. Also, more land plants means more oxygen (witness the carboniferous), again on a scale of millions of years. I would expect animals to thrive, not die off. Microorganisms are at the bottom of the food chain after all. And we can easily observe that the animals requiring oxygen had no issues shortly after the extinction event. Sudden change causes extinctions, not gradual change. Organisms do not have time to adapt. A few lucky ones find themselves in enclaves where they eek their way through the event. So where is the sudden change, defined as less than 100,000 years? Extra-solar events - supernova, gamma ray burst, dense cloud, etc. - fits the data without a smoking gun. A supernova might leave isotope traces like plutonium, although I am not aware of any such traces, but a gamma ray burst would not. The vulcanism theory should mirror the Carboniferous extinction, which did not produce an ice age during or immediately after the event. If you agree with this reasoning, that only some sudden change could produce a mass extinction, what is your next best bet?
Oh gosh, I don't even remeber how I used it in this video hahaha, but in general, we use the term excursions to refer to times in Earth's history where certain things/measurements spiked or fluctuated. For example, we often use it in isotope geochemistry, when certain isotopic signitures (chemical signatures) in the rock record spike or dip suddenly at a certain time in Earth's history, we call that an isotope excusion. We typically preface it with the isotope system in question, for example when the excursion occurs in the C isotope record we call it a carbon isotope excursion, and so on for the other systems. I hope that helps ;)
Using the axiom 'The present is the key to the past', and while not always true is a good starting point, do we currently see the extinction (or reduction) of near shore marine life in those areas of the globe with high levels of forest or plant cover near those coasts? For example, Southeast Asia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Central America, Central Africa, etc? Are those areas anoxic? I think large silt loads would adversely affect life near shore, but silt loads should go down as plant life and soil stabilization go up, the riparian buffer effect.
Absolutely. Areas where there is a lot of nutrient influx (such as where the Mississippi enters the Gulf of Mexico) there are algal blooms at the waters surface that cause the bottom waters to become anoxic. The common term for modern ocean anoxic zones is 'dead zones' so if you look up map of dead zones, you'll be able to see where these current anoxic zones are in are ocean today. They're very concentrated at continental margins because that's where the influx of nutrients that feeds the blooms comes in. Hope that answers your question :)
Wouldn't ozone levels deplete along with oxygen, as deep-rooted trees and eutrophication take over? Or did that mostly only affect the ocean instead of the atmosphere? I'm not an expert, and I'm sure it's hotly debated, but that's just my first take when hearing that ozone dropped at a time when oxygen did, too. 🤔 If it was a nearby supernova, perhaps it created a nebula, neutron star, or other stellar remnant could be found as a potential culprit. Sort of like an interstellar fossil record!
Hi! Are there any geological markers for a massive volcanic eruption event? Obviously, lava flows of the correct age, but I mean any chemical markers of a massive release of sulfur-based materials into the atmosphere? I'm just wondering if there's a way to gather that kind of evidence. Edited: LOL, at 7am I can barely put thoughts together. I'm talking about maybe rock layers or something like BIFs.
Dear CZcams - What does “human activities” have to do with the Devonian Mass Extinction Event?!? Or any of the other 5 Mass Extinction Events in Geological History?!?
If you look how the late devonian extinction happen. It looks like a fish tank when it goes through its ammonia cycle. I wonder if this is somewhat the same thing that happen on earth.
Ooo interesting question! I am NO expert on solar wind, I don't think so?, but even if they could be blown, they likely wouldn't survive a trip to another planet. I also don't think spores are present that high in Earth's atmosphere, but I could be wrong. You should ask an astrophysics expert, I bet they'd have a better answer haha ;)
Aren't solar wind particles kind of nasty & high-energy, though? The solar wind has been implicated in the loss of Mars' atmosphere (once Mars' magnetic field stopped protecting the atmospheric molecules from being split & stripped off). I have no idea if spores (assuming they're present in Earth's upper atmosphere, I'm not an expert on that) would be viable after exposure to something like that. However, if any spores could survive, they would likely be dandelions since those things seem to survive everything! 😂
I am a hardcore catastrophist. I think most of earths massive climate change extinctions were caused via celestial catastrophe. Def going to read that paper
Aliens. Well, it was more like alien, his name was Karl. He left the parking break on his UAP and was trying to neutral drop his warp drive at the same time. The entire warp drive, reality anchors, and four out of five inertial dampeners were atomized and dumped a bunch of radioactive junk all over our sector...
Why was the equatorial region more efected. Wouldn't ionizing radiation coming from the sun be strongest at the equator. What do you suppose the effect would be if a very very large body hit the sun . Let's say like a Jupiter sized planet. The majority of stars we see in the night sky have Jupiter sized and bigger planets orbiting very close to their sun. The mass of our sun is about 99 3/4 the mass of the solar system. Loosing a Jupiter might not be a big deal. Or maybe it could temporarily cause the surface of or sun to giggle like jello. Long enough to overwhelm the ozone layer. Killing most of the equatorial life. The second devotion extinction maybe cause be what ever knocked the rest of the planet off mercury. Or maybe another big inner planet fell victim the the disturbance of the first event. Now all we have to figure out is why all this solar destruction this late in the game. Then again, who knows how many extinction we would have counted if multicellular life had started a billion years ago. I guess what puzzles me is the equatorial region getting hit the hardest. Seems like something came from the sun. Anyway I loved your video. 😊
Why did the Y chromosomes of Neanderthals/Denisovans come out to be so similar between them and us? Let's take a look. When they make statements of Neanderthal DNA vs. human DNA in their comparisons, it is misdirection. In actuality, it is common gene expression between us. Neanderthals WERE human with mere gene expression modification differences with NO implied evolving of DNA mutations being involved. It's sleight of hand. Actual tabulation of our DNA sequences with theirs showed a result of 99.84% commonality. We are 99.90% identical to each other. Why the 00.10% difference between each human being? It's mutation load. Why the 00.06% difference between us and them? Again...its the mutation load accumulation over the thousands of years since we co-existed. Subtract the thousands of years, then we would be 99.9% identical All this is evolution-impertinent. What is pertinent about the disseminators of evolution information and the resulting confused public who selects to listen to them? It shows misdirection and propagandization. It's control of the information to make a false impression of 'evolving DNA mutations'...general evolution to the fans of evolution. The problem? Genes modify by chemical tagging, largely by methylation, ABOVE the DNA sequences without mutations to them. It's a 2nd information code called the 'epigenome'. Purveyors of evolutionary theory makes it seem there is only ONE information code, being the DNA code. It's lying by simplifying, accidentally for many who only memorized what their professors wanted for a passing grade, and pass on this misdirection to others. For a pretty good paycheck, too. Want to know another misdirection? It's implying that chimpanzee's DNA sequence 'similarity' to humans of '98.5%' would be from the same scientific method applications as the 99.84% Neanderthal-human similarity. Is it? No. The chimpanzee comparison is between similar genes while EXCLUDING the non-coding DNA regions. With the Neanderthals, it's comparing ALL of the DNA sequence. Not ending there, the chimpanzee's Y chromosome in the sex-specific regions was compared to us, the pro-evolution researcher was surprised to find they were missing 33% of the total human genes. He said the difference was 'horrendous'! He said the difference between us and them was as large as the difference between a chicken's Y chromosome and ours. So how TODAY'S male chimp offspring be 98.5% similar to human's male offspring when 33% of the genes are missing? The scientific prediction before the study was done, the two Y chromosomes should have been 98%+ similar. What was their rescue excuse to this intelligent design-friendly finding? What is the rescue excuse for just looking at a fraction of the chimp DNA, not the entire sequence, for the 98.5% similarity? Why imply just DNA in Neanderthal comparisons when it's common gene expression instead? It looks like a degree in evolutionary biology and theory is made of misdirection and memorization of rescue excuses. 'Evolution' is misrepresentation of gene expression, epigenetics, and the epigenome's capabilities and claims of gene degeneration causes evolutionary generation. What is the root of this claim of degeneration leading to generation? It is in the above sentence! it's taking these epigenome-derived gene expression capabilities and THE ASSUMPTION OF EVOLVING DNA MUTATIONS when...by definition...no mutations happen with this biological system. What else does this epigenome's capability do? It makes adaptations to changed environment, diet, or new threats for hundreds of generations, if needed. It can do it for one or two generations if the change switches back. This includes the Darwin Finch beaks WITHOUT the theorized 'engine' of evolution. This is a post-2014 new-info THIRD ASPECT of epigenetic ability. Thusly, it is an intelligent design signature by its logistics and common sense when no bias is applied. The science-specific information above is web search retrievable and verifiable. Why does people like me have more scientific information than the innocent consumers of the evolution theory do? It is because the evolution-unfriendly information is withheld or piecemealed. It shows propagandization, not rationalization. It shows people like me gets the truth demonstrated while others take it dictated by their mentors they selected to listen to. There you go. There's your science. Evolution is not happening. We are a creation. The creator? Jesus Christ beyond doubt. I have put decades of research in this truth demonstrated to me. The 'dots of the picture' that the theory of evolution gives is the illusion of there being no God. It produces a much higher suicide rate in kids raised in this fatalism. The accompanying depression is not good in trying to foster a successful civilization to pass on to our children. The 'science' of evolution disrupts the sciences of other applications of science such as in psychology and social science aspects. It has selfish political science benefits to those who push the theory.
Hi I presume you are a geologist, explanation is great. Right now we are planning a large drilling campaign in the border area of Belgium, Netherlands and Germany. This is done to make a detailed 3D-map of this area for the Einstein Telescope (huge subsurface gravitational wave observatory to study colliding stars, black holes et cetera) We already drilled three times to the contact between the late Devonian (Famennian) and Carboniferous, but in those cases with a large hiatus in geology 324 MYr jumped to 360 MYr. We also saw interesting layering in the Famennian stage 370-360 Myr, we just didn't reach 359,2 MYr yet which was the End of the Devonian age. But we will also drill Frasnian age layers which was the first pulse. There might even be 3 pulses that could be found in those stages. KR Bjorn
After of all this such long story, I thought we’re gonna ending up with an invitation for her asking her to participate of the project. Why you had to mention all this unnecessary stuff? I mean, good for you if you feel happy and proud, but in science almost nobody cares about what other people are doing, except their own researches
Wonderful summary of the potential causative events leading to the Devonian extinctions. I was particularly intrigued by the botanical theories. You do such a wonderful job on all these videos especially considering the pressures of a Phd dissertation and internships. I salute you.
Thank you so much! I am predicting that I will start posting less often once I'm really in the thick of writing haha, but right now it's a doable balance, especially because I really enjoy doing these videos so it's a nice break from my other work :)
Very interesting video! I learned a lot. An ice age when glaciers reached within 30 degrees of the equator? In the northern hemisphere, that’s further south than El Paso, all the way to Houston. Could you imagine looking outside and seeing a glacier covering Texas? 😳
I know right! That'd be crazy! 🥶
Or seeing glaciers in Northern Mexico or in large parts of South America!
Glaciers near the equator caught my ear as well. Cue the young Drew Barrymore saying glaciers near the equator instead of alligators in the sewers.
I could listen to you for hours.
Wow! That's much longer than I can listen to me hahaha
Thank you for Sharing. You are a great Teacher.
I was surprised to find that so much of the gneiss in New England was actually an accumulation of volcanic ash from the Ordovician. When you consider the benefits that volcanic ash has on a resurgence of plant life, I wonder what is more important in the production of soil? Having glaciers grinding down some of the relief like a giant sheet of sandpaper was probably more effective than waiting for weak acids to crumble near insoluble rocks. I have to wonder what the slow evolution of mulch had on determining what food plants would evolve and sustain large herbivores. The Ammonoosuc Volcanics were part of a huge mountain system and it is hard to believe that chemical means alone would shrink the Appalachians to their present size.
Thanks! Your content is worth a few dollars, and I'm happy to support your geo-obsession. Keep up the good work!
Thanks so much! You are so kind!😊
Another excellent video. I just took a look at your backlist of video titles. So so so many I want to watch; I feel like a kid at Christmas. I’ll have to make time to slowly go thru them. I promise not to comment on old videos though. :)
Thanks again Chris! The comment about feeling like a kid on Christmas made my day :)
And please do comment on the old ones if you have any input or questions! I actually love it when I get comments on my old videos ;D
Very good, thank you.
As a generalisation one might wonder if mass extinctions are always multi-factorial. The biosphere needs both a stressor to become vulnerable to further insults and then for those insults to happen.
I would argue major extinction events generally require multiple compounding factors, this is something I actually talk a lot more about in my extinction video which is about extinction in general and the causes for background versus mass extinctions: czcams.com/video/enPQE0leoJw/video.html ;)
Amazing video and so much interesting content that not only puts what the current theory is, which I've found many channels that might put out scientific information, but issues with the theory, and potential, though unyet proven theories to get around them (this is how things should be, it's good science works, it's an ever changing field with new discoveries being made all the time).
I've only just found your channel so will be binge watching your other videos (I have already watched a few), but you present the information in such a clear and concise way that it's easy to follow, always expanding on terminology that people might not know, which I think is great. I just wanted to drop a message to say thank you for such great videos (I'm from a more physics and astronomy interest background but love hearing about all science), and I hope the numbers of people subscribing to your channel continues to climb, and I look forward to future videos.
Thank you so much for the kind words! So glad you found my channel and are enjoying the videos! If you ever want to suggest a topic for a future video, just let me know ;)
Geo Girl brings everything full circle. Awesome! 🎉😊
Didn't Gondwanaland drift fairly close to the South Pole during this period, giving massive glaciers a perch to build and spread out from? I recall reading somewhere that this might have contributed to the extreme glaciation event that happened at the end of this period. If there hadn't been so much land that close to the South Pole, the glaciers couldn't have been as extensive.
Something similar may have contributed to our more recent Ice Age, which I guess technically we're still in. A bunch of land (Antarctica) is available at the South Pole for glaciers to build up on, glaciers that would otherwise be incapable of forming in the open ocean. There's also quite a lot of land - Canada, Russia, Northern Europe, Alaska, Greenland - clustered fairly near the North Pole, meaning that once the climate cools sufficiently, massive glaciers can form in the Northern Hemisphere as well. Without Antarctica, and if the continents more closely hugged the equator, it would be far more difficult for an Ice Age to develop and persist.
Yep, this actually happened just before the Devonian in the late Ordovician (so it was actually the cause for the Ordovician extinctions, which I talk about in that video: czcams.com/video/DODZo8EgLg8/video.html).
I think it contributed to the Devonian glaciation, but it wasn't the main driver for the onset of climate change since it was already positioned theres. And you are also right about the modern ice age, as soon as continental landmasses became isolated near the poles, cooling of the poles greatly increased because the waters circulated around just the poles getting colder and colder. Before Antarctica was isolated at the S pole, when Austrailia, India, and S America were still attached, it remained relatively warm because the water was too warm since it's circulation pattern was different, I actually talk about this in another video if you want to check it out: czcams.com/video/_VpzDyNY_wI/video.html haha sorry to throw so many videos at you, I just feel as though you are mentioning exactly the things I cover in those, so you may be interested :) Also you sound like the kind of person I should have watch those videos because you may be able to provide more insight into the processes or even correct something I say :) Anyway, thanks for the comment! ;D
Hi Geo Girl :) May I ask what is your background? For someone who appears to be so young, you have a lot of knowledge. Do you have a degree(s)? If so, where from? Until he went off to college, we had a young man at the NHSM, who was that way too.
Besides working with fossils, I also do my best to keep up with the ongoing research on extinction and climate events, which often seen to be related: The importance being that after extinction events, there’s a burst of evolution to fill various niches.
What I especially like about this presentation, is that you explain all the potential causes of the Late Devonian Extinction. Even though people might favor one cause over another, I feel that it’s important to be aware of all possibilities.
I say that in part because so much of what we thought we knew about Earth’s past in the 1950-60s, has changed. I’ve felt for a number of years that concerning Historical Geology, we are living in a golden age of discovery: in part due to the advent of computers, and also the development of new equipment and techniques that allow us to see more detail in the geologic record then ever before.
It's funny you ask all these questions now, I am actually currently working on a video explaining who I am for those of you who are new to my channel :) But in short, my name is Rachel and I am currently a PhD student at the University of Texas at El Paso studying marine biogeochemistry (specifically, I study how trace metal signatures are preserved in the rock record and what they can tell us about Earth's past conditions). I have my bachelors degree in geology (with chemistry minor) from the University of Texas at Arlington, and I am going straight from my bachelors to phd (I don't have my masters). I didn't take any time off between my bachelors and starting my PhD so that may be why I seem so young ;) I am now going on my fourth year as a PhD student and hope to graduate in the next few semesters! ;D
Thanks for the comment and kind words. I too like it best when people present all the options and possibilities so I try my hardest to include everything I am aware of :)
Thank you so much ❤.I am going to all of this on my seminar presentation 😅 U tell much more than I prepare for my ppt so thanksss a lotttt🎉
I've heard that the development of wood as a material contributed to the devonian extinction as well, since nothing had yet evolved to break it down, woody plants became a massive carbon sink. Have you seen anything relating to this hypothesis? I find it interesting as an example of how nature adapts to break down complex materials, and how that might relate to the current plastic crisis. If there's more plastic in the ocean than fish biomass, something will eventually come along and learn how to break it down.
Very helpful lecture . Could you make videos on geophysics?
Thanks, seems that a combination of factors contributed to the Devonian Extinction. The mysteries of whether or not a gamma ray burster contributed to it would require first proving the burster occurred and then calculating timescales in relation to computer models of how long fauna and flora had to adapt through evolution of multiple generations. If a burster occurred when the dramatic increase in plant sizes from several feet tall to 70 feet tall and to when the plants expanded due to seeds into previously barren areas. Then there may have been a slow enough transition for 70 percent (arbitrary thought experiment amount) of the faunal species to go extinct, but the addition of a Gamma Ray burster increased it to 90 percent for example. Seems these major changes would be sufficient to cause extinction without the Hypernova but the hypernova is such an interesting idea that simple proving that it left its mark on our planet is intriguing,
Such an amazing series! Looks like you produce talks as things catch your fancy. But is there a site where one can view the presentations in (geologic) chronologic order? (Sorry, this elderly professor prefers that sort of organization.)
Yes, I have playlists where the videos are listed in order! Here is the earth history playlist: czcams.com/video/5gvM5kYGnDw/video.html
I found this very interesting Rachel, thanks for making it. BTW I watched your entire previous video but didn’t leave a comment. As always
I ❤️ GEO GIRL
Thanks for uploading. Saw an old SciShow video and wanted to know the current hypotheses
Yet another great video. I liked the explanation of how weathering can lead to changes in the ecosystem and climate. Does UV light increase whenever there is glaciation in lower latitudes due to how much snow reflects sunlight (like how skiers get sunburned because the sun reflects off all the white snow)?
Thanks so much!
I don't think the amount of UV light reaching Earth's surface increases because glaciation does not degrade ozone, but you're right that the dose of sun and UV light would increase just because of the reflection off the white surface :)
Fascinating, thank you.
I never did trust those trees. Interesting how many rocks are named after Celtic British tribes, Ordovices, Silures, Dumnoni (Devon derives it’s name from them). Ironic that they were Iron Age not Stone Age.
Thanks for this video. It was especially interesting for me as I happen to live in a region where we have both Middle/Upper Devonian limestone from an ancient coral reef (containing a lot of fossilized Favosites corals) and post Kellwasser event shales (Kellwasser event: the first of the two extinction pulses) which are devoid of any fossils.
BTW: The german Wikipedia names the Woodleigh impact crater in Australia as one possible cause for the extinction as it was of the right age (364 mya +/- 8 mya) and still a bit smaller than the asteroid from the K-PG boundary but not by much. What do you think?
Good solid video. Would like to know more on how melting glaciers lead to upwelling in the oceans. It seems counterintuitive
Thank you so much.
Important information, explained expertly.
Thanks so much!
Well-presented video.
lol at about 6:00, in the diagram at the lower right, in the section that says "Killing animals that rely on O2" the only thing below the algae is the little picture of Rachel.
Interesting that the spread of vascular land plants could lead to both the rise of oxygen in the atmosphere and anoxia in the depths of the oceans.
Yes! This is a very important point. I think a lot of people assume the chemical reservoirs for the major elements (the atmosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere, etc) are all in equilibrium all the time, but earth is characteristically out of equilibrium all th e time which drives these differences and also creates the energy for life! :) So yes, absolutely the deep oceans and the atmosphere are not always in perfect balance (in fact, most often in earth's history they've been completely out of balance with the deep ocean containing a lack of oxygen; only recently on modern earth have the oceans been relatively fully oxygenated). :)
It was very informative and useful video! I've wanted to figure out Late Devonian Extinction Events for a very long time and I'm very glad that I've found this video. Thank you very much!
Im so happy i wound this!
Love from Finland!
Fucked up in the crib learning about the Devonian extinction
Excellent palaeo show! Engaging and rich in scientific info. BTW low CO2 can cause ocean anoxia in another way (other than eutrophication from soils). CO2 is linked to ventilation - carrying of O2 down to the ocean floor, connected with plankton photosynthesis. [Marcantonio F et al. Sci Rep 10, 6606 (2020).]
I enjoy your videos.
Wow now I know where I live in Western Australia is one of the oldest surface areas on the planet. 😳
Tnx for the information ❤️...
Of course! Thanks for the comment :)
Thank you great video
Love your channel!
Thanks! So glad you enjoy it ;D
Very interesting, great summary!
Thanks!
Thanks so much! So glad you enjoyed the video ;D
The uv damage along with that cooling might make sense if a volcanic eruption or impact sent large amounts of both sulfur dioxide and some chlorine compound into the stratosphere at the same time. As I recall it's the chlorine in CFCs that damaged the ozone layer.
Was the organic/nitrogen-rich runoff into the oceans during the Devonian period greater than that which occurs today? I would have thought that current runoff would be greater, since the rocks and soil are presumably even more broken down that they were during the Devonian, as well as man-made nitrogen run-off.
Another very informative video!!!! Ive been binge watching!!! I really like how you present all the info!!! My main interest is when you talk more about the ice ages.
Thanks so much! I am so happy that you've been enjoying my content :D If there are ever any topics or specific ice age events that I haven't covered and you'd like me to discuss just let me know! ;)
@@GEOGIRL One thing that always confuses me is you and others talk about the cooling events and glaciation and how much dryer the Earth gets. Now ive seen Antarctica is considered a desert. So, how do the glaciers actually grow? If places like Antarctica are a desert id assume not much snow. And in the northern hemisphere when glaciers were up to 2 miles deep where did all the actual moisture come from? What would the actual process be to produce the massive glaciers. I hope my laymen thoughts are not too confusing...hahaha
@@JasonKale What a great question! Trust me, your thoughts make complete sense, I wondered this for a long time too! The glaciers actually do grow from snow because warm air from the equator migrates to the poles where it then cools down and sinks and eventually falls to the ground as snow. The snow is then compacted into something called 'fern' then it eventually becomes solid ice and the friction at the bottom of the ice sheet or glacier creates heat which allows some water to melt and the glacier to move (although these are all VERY slow processes). I actually havea video about glacial environments and I talk in it about how glaciers form if you're interested: czcams.com/video/1wroG2YkLRo/video.html ;)
You are right, however, that as a whole the globe becomes a lot drier during ice ages and glaciations and its just because the cooler oceans undergo less evaporation than when the globe is warmer, and less evaporation also means less precipitation. During some intense glacial periods ice sheets can form by the ocean directly freezing. It is only continental ice sheets and glaciers that require snow.
Anyway, hope that makes a bit more sense! And hope you enjoy the glacier video ;)
@@GEOGIRL Thanks!!!!!
@@GEOGIRL I would assume the glaciers them selves act as giant condensation sponges???
Geo Girl, I love all your videos. This one was fantastic. You're so logical and well organized. Very impressive.
I loved the slide that showed how evolution went from gill arches to eventually jaws.
I also really admire how you respond to counterpoints and detractors. You are very politic. It's a skill that will take you great places.
Jaws. 🦴
Denticles. 🦷
Lungs. 🫁
And of course your boy, Tictaalik🦎. 😘
your content always kicks ass !
Thank you so much! ;D
It's alright now, I managed to fix the problem. It was in my cache for Firefox AND Chronic for CZcams. I can view your videos normally now. - Aha, I saw that mistake you meant now. "Ordi" instead of "Ordo" - similar to me when I want to write "Cretatious" instead of "Cretaceous". I think I also may have made out the antipode for the Hawaiian hotspot in the Pacific Tectonic Plate..
Oh, I have no idea. I have never actively done anything to make that the case, but I don't know whether youtube has something about their videos where they make that happen. I am so sorry, I wish I could help, but I have never used an ad blocker so I am not sure how it works or why it would interfere :( I hope it starts to work! :)
Lovely presentation! I'm not sure about the supernova hypothesis though. Supernovae close enough to influence earth's biota have probably been occurring throughout Earth's history, so why just one of the Big 5 extinction events?
Hi! Supernovae occur when stars around 8-10+ solar masses run out of fuel in their iron core. These higher mass stars are much less common than lower mass stars like our sun & their lives are much shorter. There's a lower likelihood of a higher mass star being in your backyard (especially in our section of the galaxy since we're kind of far from many of the star forming regions), so there's a lower likelihood of a supernova explosion in your backyard. The solar system formed in a star forming region of some sort around 4.5-5 Gya, so higher mass stars in that region died ages ago, so we're not really near (astronomically speaking) anything that's likely to go kablooey anytime soon. Thank goodness. 😬 However, a lower chance isn't a non-zero chance, so there's a possibility that a supernova could be implicated in one or more of Earth's past extinction events.
There's a far smaller chance of Earth getting hit by an asteroid now than 3.5-4 Gya, but it can still happen. (I hate those stupid articles which claim, "Asteroid the size of the Empire State building is barreling towards Earth on Tuesday!!!" when really, it's not going to even come within the Moon's orbit.)
@@kerriemckinstry-jett8625 Thanks for the very informative update/explanation. I share your frustration with the current trend to report on asteroids that are zooming by somewhere vaguely in our orbit. Whoever is responsible for the news releases that yield these stupid articles should be ashamed.
@@caspasesumo No problem! Astronomy is my main subject & is honestly my favorite one to teach. I also teach physics & a bit of chemistry & geology (nowhere near the scale of Geo Girl's videos, though). Articles with sensational headlines are among my pet peeves as a teacher!
Wow Thanks for sharing your astronomy knowledge Kerrie! Very helpful and interesting! And yes, hahaha I hate the catchy titles in regular news articles!! Even when the article itself explains the science correctly, people get the wrong idea from the titles and then don't read the article itself!
@@GEOGIRL Hi! No problem! I teach astronomy (I'm actually going to be teaching the first class of the semester for one of my astro classes later today), so this is fun for me. Thank you for the geology videos! They're fun & educational! 🙂
So earth turned into a dirty fish tank for a few million years that’s crazy
Talking about the Devonian it would be nice if they could bring back the Eusthenopteron.
Super nova explosion in a nearby solar system. That's all it took for me.
Is there a video explaining how ice caps during icehouse periods cover large amount of one side but the other is not.
Does this have to do with the fact theres no large continent at the northpoel
Would Cooksonia be one of the earliest vascular plants?
Well done, but permit me to raise my hand for a question. The process of building soil would have taken millions of years, and ocean microorganisms would have had plenty of time to adapt to a more nutrient dense environment. Also, more land plants means more oxygen (witness the carboniferous), again on a scale of millions of years. I would expect animals to thrive, not die off. Microorganisms are at the bottom of the food chain after all. And we can easily observe that the animals requiring oxygen had no issues shortly after the extinction event. Sudden change causes extinctions, not gradual change. Organisms do not have time to adapt. A few lucky ones find themselves in enclaves where they eek their way through the event. So where is the sudden change, defined as less than 100,000 years? Extra-solar events - supernova, gamma ray burst, dense cloud, etc. - fits the data without a smoking gun. A supernova might leave isotope traces like plutonium, although I am not aware of any such traces, but a gamma ray burst would not. The vulcanism theory should mirror the Carboniferous extinction, which did not produce an ice age during or immediately after the event. If you agree with this reasoning, that only some sudden change could produce a mass extinction, what is your next best bet?
Need some assistance, please. Not familiar with use of "excursions" in that manner. What does it mean in geological terms, please?
Oh gosh, I don't even remeber how I used it in this video hahaha, but in general, we use the term excursions to refer to times in Earth's history where certain things/measurements spiked or fluctuated. For example, we often use it in isotope geochemistry, when certain isotopic signitures (chemical signatures) in the rock record spike or dip suddenly at a certain time in Earth's history, we call that an isotope excusion. We typically preface it with the isotope system in question, for example when the excursion occurs in the C isotope record we call it a carbon isotope excursion, and so on for the other systems. I hope that helps ;)
@@GEOGIRL Got it! Thanks much!
Using the axiom 'The present is the key to the past', and while not always true is a good starting point, do we currently see the extinction (or reduction) of near shore marine life in those areas of the globe with high levels of forest or plant cover near those coasts? For example, Southeast Asia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Central America, Central Africa, etc? Are those areas anoxic?
I think large silt loads would adversely affect life near shore, but silt loads should go down as plant life and soil stabilization go up, the riparian buffer effect.
Absolutely. Areas where there is a lot of nutrient influx (such as where the Mississippi enters the Gulf of Mexico) there are algal blooms at the waters surface that cause the bottom waters to become anoxic. The common term for modern ocean anoxic zones is 'dead zones' so if you look up map of dead zones, you'll be able to see where these current anoxic zones are in are ocean today. They're very concentrated at continental margins because that's where the influx of nutrients that feeds the blooms comes in. Hope that answers your question :)
@@GEOGIRL Interesting. I didn't know that.
Wouldn't ozone levels deplete along with oxygen, as deep-rooted trees and eutrophication take over? Or did that mostly only affect the ocean instead of the atmosphere? I'm not an expert, and I'm sure it's hotly debated, but that's just my first take when hearing that ozone dropped at a time when oxygen did, too. 🤔
If it was a nearby supernova, perhaps it created a nebula, neutron star, or other stellar remnant could be found as a potential culprit. Sort of like an interstellar fossil record!
I love your videos
Thanks! I am so happy that you enjoy them :D
Hi! Are there any geological markers for a massive volcanic eruption event? Obviously, lava flows of the correct age, but I mean any chemical markers of a massive release of sulfur-based materials into the atmosphere? I'm just wondering if there's a way to gather that kind of evidence.
Edited: LOL, at 7am I can barely put thoughts together. I'm talking about maybe rock layers or something like BIFs.
Dear CZcams - What does “human activities” have to do with the Devonian Mass Extinction Event?!? Or any of the other 5 Mass Extinction Events in Geological History?!?
Is it possible that changes in the earth’s magnetic polarity could have impacted the ozone / UV situation?
Do you have an article for this one?❤
If you look how the late devonian extinction happen. It looks like a fish tank when it goes through its ammonia cycle. I wonder if this is somewhat the same thing that happen on earth.
Great thanks
Of course, thank you for the comment!
Very nice video..❤️🇮🇳💙😇
Thank you!
@@GEOGIRL most welcome..🙂🙂and not sorry for late reply... I can understand..🙂🙂
6:00 Anarobic bacteria: "Now you know how it feels to die en masse! Not so fun, is it?"
Hii geo girl...
Amazing 🤩
Thank you! ;D
@@GEOGIRL welcome ❣️
@@GEOGIRL
How are you???
Interesting video
Thank you, so glad you liked it ;)
Can spores be blown by the solar wind from the upper atmosphere and end up on other planets?
Ooo interesting question! I am NO expert on solar wind, I don't think so?, but even if they could be blown, they likely wouldn't survive a trip to another planet. I also don't think spores are present that high in Earth's atmosphere, but I could be wrong. You should ask an astrophysics expert, I bet they'd have a better answer haha ;)
Aren't solar wind particles kind of nasty & high-energy, though? The solar wind has been implicated in the loss of Mars' atmosphere (once Mars' magnetic field stopped protecting the atmospheric molecules from being split & stripped off). I have no idea if spores (assuming they're present in Earth's upper atmosphere, I'm not an expert on that) would be viable after exposure to something like that.
However, if any spores could survive, they would likely be dandelions since those things seem to survive everything! 😂
I am a hardcore catastrophist. I think most of earths massive climate change extinctions were caused via celestial catastrophe. Def going to read that paper
Aliens. Well, it was more like alien, his name was Karl. He left the parking break on his UAP and was trying to neutral drop his warp drive at the same time. The entire warp drive, reality anchors, and four out of five inertial dampeners were atomized and dumped a bunch of radioactive junk all over our sector...
谢谢老师，我成绩好多了
omg she so cuuuute
omg, me?? Thank you! ;)
@@GEOGIRL yes youuuuuuu
Why was the equatorial region more efected. Wouldn't ionizing radiation coming from the sun be strongest at the equator. What do you suppose the effect would be if a very very large body hit the sun .
Let's say like a Jupiter sized planet.
The majority of stars we see in the night sky have Jupiter sized and bigger planets orbiting very close to their sun.
The mass of our sun is about 99 3/4 the mass of the solar system. Loosing a Jupiter might not be a big deal. Or maybe it could temporarily cause the surface of or sun to giggle like jello. Long enough to overwhelm the ozone layer. Killing most of the equatorial life.
The second devotion extinction maybe cause be what ever knocked the rest of the planet off mercury. Or maybe another big inner planet fell victim the the disturbance of the first event.
Now all we have to figure out is why all this solar destruction this late in the game.
Then again, who knows how many extinction we would have counted if multicellular life had started a billion years ago.
I guess what puzzles me is the equatorial region getting hit the hardest. Seems like something came from the sun.
Anyway I loved your video. 😊
She's cute but I haven't figured out the Great Disco Extinction yet.
Why did the Y chromosomes of Neanderthals/Denisovans come out to be so similar between them and us? Let's take a look.
When they make statements of Neanderthal DNA vs. human DNA in their comparisons, it is misdirection. In actuality, it is common gene expression between us. Neanderthals WERE human with mere gene expression modification differences with NO implied evolving of DNA mutations being involved. It's sleight of hand. Actual tabulation of our DNA sequences with theirs showed a result of 99.84% commonality. We are 99.90% identical to each other. Why the 00.10% difference between each human being? It's mutation load. Why the 00.06% difference between us and them? Again...its the mutation load accumulation over the thousands of years since we co-existed. Subtract the thousands of years, then we would be 99.9% identical
All this is evolution-impertinent.
What is pertinent about the disseminators of evolution information and the resulting confused public who selects to listen to them? It shows misdirection and propagandization. It's control of the information to make a false impression of 'evolving DNA mutations'...general evolution to the fans of evolution. The problem? Genes modify by chemical tagging, largely by methylation, ABOVE the DNA sequences without mutations to them. It's a 2nd information code called the 'epigenome'. Purveyors of evolutionary theory makes it seem there is only ONE information code, being the DNA code. It's lying by simplifying, accidentally for many who only memorized what their professors wanted for a passing grade, and pass on this misdirection to others. For a pretty good paycheck, too.
Want to know another misdirection? It's implying that chimpanzee's DNA sequence 'similarity' to humans of '98.5%' would be from the same scientific method applications as the 99.84% Neanderthal-human similarity. Is it? No. The chimpanzee comparison is between similar genes while EXCLUDING the non-coding DNA regions. With the Neanderthals, it's comparing ALL of the DNA sequence.
Not ending there, the chimpanzee's Y chromosome in the sex-specific regions was compared to us, the pro-evolution researcher was surprised to find they were missing 33% of the total human genes. He said the difference was 'horrendous'! He said the difference between us and them was as large as the difference between a chicken's Y chromosome and ours. So how TODAY'S male chimp offspring be 98.5% similar to human's male offspring when 33% of the genes are missing? The scientific prediction before the study was done, the two Y chromosomes should have been 98%+ similar.
What was their rescue excuse to this intelligent design-friendly finding? What is the rescue excuse for just looking at a fraction of the chimp DNA, not the entire sequence, for the 98.5% similarity? Why imply just DNA in Neanderthal comparisons when it's common gene expression instead? It looks like a degree in evolutionary biology and theory is made of misdirection and memorization of rescue excuses.
'Evolution' is misrepresentation of gene expression, epigenetics, and the epigenome's capabilities and claims of gene degeneration causes evolutionary generation. What is the root of this claim of degeneration leading to generation? It is in the above sentence! it's taking these epigenome-derived gene expression capabilities and THE ASSUMPTION OF EVOLVING DNA MUTATIONS when...by definition...no mutations happen with this biological system. What else does this epigenome's capability do? It makes adaptations to changed environment, diet, or new threats for hundreds of generations, if needed. It can do it for one or two generations if the change switches back. This includes the Darwin Finch beaks WITHOUT the theorized 'engine' of evolution. This is a post-2014 new-info THIRD ASPECT of epigenetic ability. Thusly, it is an intelligent design signature by its logistics and common sense when no bias is applied.
The science-specific information above is web search retrievable and verifiable. Why does people like me have more scientific information than the innocent consumers of the evolution theory do? It is because the evolution-unfriendly information is withheld or piecemealed. It shows propagandization, not rationalization. It shows people like me gets the truth demonstrated while others take it dictated by their mentors they selected to listen to. There you go. There's your science. Evolution is not happening. We are a creation. The creator? Jesus Christ beyond doubt. I have put decades of research in this truth demonstrated to me. The 'dots of the picture' that the theory of evolution gives is the illusion of there being no God. It produces a much higher suicide rate in kids raised in this fatalism. The accompanying depression is not good in trying to foster a successful civilization to pass on to our children. The 'science' of evolution disrupts the sciences of other applications of science such as in psychology and social science aspects. It has selfish political science benefits to those who push the theory.
Hi
Please purchase a new mic! Your info amazing but dont get across with that mic 🎙️
wowah you gobble big glizzys and i know your a man but you are so level 10 ohio omega rizz
You're so smart and beautiful
Thank you ;)
@@GEOGIRL welcome and also I really enjoyed your video on Europa.ive always like to that moon
@@kaileaugust4980 So glad to hear that! Europa is hard not to love :D
you are pretty for a fish
bro this sucks😂😂.. little pictures all the time and the way she shows it it feels like I’m in middle school again it’s really cheap 🤦🏻♂️