Veritasium Is a Religious Channel @Veritasium

Watch on YouTube · 2025-12-08 · 25 min

0:00 Hey everyone. As requested, I'm going to be reviewing a video called The Most Controversial Idea in Biology.

[video] 0:09 If you want to know if someone really understands evolution, just ask them this one weird question. Why does poop smell bad? Wow. Oh gosh.

0:18 Because it has bacteria in it, I guess.

[video] 0:19 Microbi-

0:21 Because it has bacteria in it, I guess? Is that what he said? Poop is a waste product, there's no need to overthink it. Your intuition tells you to stay away from it. Huh?

0:46 How can it be objective when you're talking about a subjective topic? I always see this online. People ask others if something is subjective or objective. And usually they are talking about subjective topics, but they say that it's objective. People do not understand what both of the terms mean.

[video] 1:10 How do you think it smells to flies?

1:18 Animals don't like stinky things. It's that it doesn't stink for them. Otherwise, they would stay away from it.

[video] 1:26 Really? What nutrients?

1:33 Oh, is it the 3D animation? Thank you.

[video] 1:37 Use it as food, but it's also full of bacteria that can be life-threatening to humans.

1:44 You would firstly have to prove that. Don't make empty statements like this.

[video] 1:49 So the real reason poop smelled bad to us is because if anyone ever thought it smelled good, they would probably get really sick, die, and not pass on their genes.

1:59 Yes, that's why your natural senses tell you not to consume it. What does this have to do with evolution?

[video] 2:06 After all, it's about survival of the fittest. But survival of the fittest what? I mean, most people think of natural selection as being about the survival of the fittest individual animal.

2:16 Huh? People actually believe that? It's about the survival of your own kind, your species, essentially.

[video] 2:26 Which makes sense. I mean, individuals best adapt to...

2:33 It makes no sense at all. Why would you then risk your life for your children?

[video] 2:38 Their environment have increased odds of survival and therefore a higher likelihood of passing on their genes So it follows that each individual should do everything it can to survive and reproduce that is it should be selfish But if that's true, then how do you explain this? I mean worker bees will sting predators to protect the hive Even though it might kill them in the process Female worker ants are sterile, so they can't reproduce, but regardless they work for the colony for their entire lives until they die. Monkeys adopt orphans, wolves bring meat to non-hunting members of the pack.

3:10 Exactly, it's not as if you only live for yourself.

[video] 3:17 and squirrels can let out alarm calls to warn others about nearby predators. So if natural selection is all about selfish individuals, why do we observe so much altruism in nature? But survival of the fittest species, or the fittest group, also doesn't work.

[video] 3:38 I mean, think about what you need for natural selection to occur. You need something that replicates itself many times over, creating copies, and then you need... Yes, that's how reproduction works. ...a pruning process whereby some of those copies get eliminated and some thrive to go on and create more copies.

3:56 The weaker ones get eliminated in nature.

[video] 4:01 The problem with groups or species as a whole is that they don't typically make copies of themselves, so...

4:07 Huh? What are you talking about?

[video] 4:11 You almost never get copies of groups. Fighting other copies of groups to see which groups win.

4:18 What? Why would they? Wait, wait. Is this the stupidest video ever created on YouTube? what this makes zero sense they reproduce and then fight against other animals wait how does he not understand that this is a absolute common sense if this is his conclusion right now then Whatever else he's going to say, it's all going to be completely wrong because this point is as wrong as it gets.

[video] 4:57 So if it's not survival of the fittest individual, then it's not survival of the fittest group.

5:02 But it literally is. That's nature. Wait, how can he come to this conclusion that made no sense at all?

[video] 5:10 Then what is it? Well, to explain that, I want to take you on a little journey all the way back to the beginnings of the earth.

5:22 How can you take us back to the beginning when you don't even understand what's going on right now?

[video] 5:32 Where we are now, there is nothing. Well, not really nothing, but nothing interesting. There are only simple things like these blobs. This one might be a carbon dioxide molecule or it might be cyanide. Blobs.

5:46 Same as in electropharograms.

[video] 5:48 We don't know for sure what they are, but we do know that these compounds are very simple. So for now, they'll just be blobs floating around our void. In fact, much of what we'll encounter along our journey here are just hypotheses.

5:59 A lot of Earth's early history is still... No, it's religious beliefs. I'll listen to what he has to say, but I can already tell. He simply read something somewhere. maybe nowadays through AI, and he religiously believes it, blindly. It cannot be proven. There's obviously no empirical proof or something that cannot be seen, that you have to believe.

[video] 6:33 So keep that in mind now every so often our blobs get a surplus of energy Maybe from a ray of UV light or a nearby hot source.

6:42 This is the first major upgrade to our void they're completely made up a complete religion even worse really at least if you say that God created the earth in seven days It's kind of interesting you can kind of Understand it, but this? Blobs?

7:08 That sounds worse than any religion out there. That's ten times worse than what the Bible says.

[video] 7:15 Excess energy, as it allows our blobs to interact with each other. Most of the time, this interaction leads to nothing.

7:22 Yeah, just some 3D animations, just made-up beliefs. Nothing can be proven.

[video] 7:29 Sometimes these blobs can combine into more complicated compounds. Here's a simple simulated example where we only have four red blobs. Right now, they are all individual particles, but each time step we move forward, let's say there's a 10% chance... Why do you have to say that it's simulated if it's all simulated?

7:50 If it's all based on nothing?

[video] 7:52 that all four combine into one red mega blob now imagine this mega blob isn't very stable for every time step it's alive it has a 95 chance of falling apart back into the four smaller blobs if we this is the worst video on youtube oh my god oh my god Add more of these red blobs into the mix, you'll notice that they rarely ever come together.

8:16 On average, a Mega Blob only exists around 10- A Mega Blob, oh my god I can't.

[video] 8:26 The blobs it's made of just happen to attract similar blobs from the surrounding environment. I would rather listen to a Cocomelon song than this.

[video] 8:59 This marks an important threshold. The replicator's traits aren't limited to just determining the properties of the molecules themselves. They can also shape the environment. So, by chance, the replicators inevitably mutate in ways that build scaffolding around themselves to increase the- By chance?

9:13 We cannot explain it? Which is why we say, by chance. This is worse than the Bible.

[video] 9:19 ...chances of their survival. They stumble upon ways of making structures to propel themselves around. They develop senses and ways of storing energy.

9:28 They just developed senses, by chance, yeah.

[video] 9:33 They even mix exchange and steal traits from each other. Through billions of years of trial and error, this sca- Yeah, billions of years, sure.

9:43 Yeah, great religion.

[video] 9:45 ...folding gets more and more complex, and as a result, the replicator's interactions with the void become exceedingly indirect. 4 billion years? I'm not sure, I think it was 4.33 billion.

10:14 Yeah, yeah.

[video] 10:15 The bacteria, plants, fungi, and animals all around you, everything alive, including you, was built as a survival vessel for these replicators.

10:27 Exactly, yeah, and then these replicators became fish, and then the fish jumped out of the water and said, let's breathe, everybody. Oh, it actually works. Let's become humans. And now you're here watching this video. You used to be a fish, and before that, 62.78 billion years ago, yeah, that makes sense, you were a replicator. Yeah, mm-hmm. It's all very logical.

[video] 11:02 Of course!

11:09 It's the genes! Where are they exactly? Do we have any photographs, actual real images of genes? Ah, we don't. Fuck, what do we do now? I know, we just religiously believe in them! That's the answer to everything, just religiously believe! Awesome, come on. This is a great video. It's not at all the worst video on YouTube. No They're hidden deep Wow This is so real within every living creature. Yeah. Yeah for sure. I Believe it. It's there. I can see it. I imagine it It's there. It's there This is funny, because a lot of people actually believe this. In reality, there is no alphabet, obviously, anyway. A lot of people don't even understand it.

12:07 But generally, something such as a genetic code has never been observed. at all it's an interpretation these people interpret data lights and all of that as i have explained before and that's what they base it all on but it's not as if you actually see any kind of code as such that should be clearly understood

[video] 12:32 Now, one of the leading theories is that those earliest replicators were actually something closer to RNA molecules. But then over time, this must have evolved into a more stable system of storing information, the DNA and proteins we use today. They are the code that shapes our traits. We're taught that these traits are here solely to help ensure our survival, the survival of the individual or the species. But do we have this the wrong way around? When you have a child, what do you pass on? The DNA. Yeah, you know, yeah, yeah. These tiny replicators are still fighting the same battle that started billions of years ago.

13:01 They say this because that's what they learned. It's not as if they saw them and that's what they base it on. They base it on beliefs, that's it.

[video] 13:11 And the logic behind them hasn't changed. The traits just become more convoluted. Replicators that produce traits poorly suited to their environment tend to become less common, while those that produce advantageous traits become more numerous in the population. So it's not about the fittest individual or group. It's fundamentally about the survival of the fittest genes. They are the core unit of natural selection. But why would natural selection care exactly for the gene? Why not something smaller or something bigger? Well, for something to undergo selection, it needs to have three characteristics. First, it needs to be able to make near identical copies of itself. Second, it needs to exhibit traits that affect its interaction with the environment, which, third, affect the probability of survival and reproduction of the replicator. Something small, like a single nucleotide, doesn't work, because, sure, it'll make identical copies of itself, but

13:55 really identical then why can you not do a dna test and test if somebody's hair belongs to somebody's saliva why has that never been done it should be easy if it's identical popularized by richard dawkins in his book the selfish gene based on the work of evolutionary Richard Dawkins is a religious leader.

[video] 14:17 Allergists in the 1960s and 70s, and as a response against the then very popular group selection theory, Dawkins argued that just about every trait, from animals helping each other to being completely selfish, is a strategy that helps their genes survive and replicate. Genes that maximize their own survival are the genes that propagate best, even if they do so at the expense of others. Or in Dawkins' words, we are survival machines, robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.

14:44 Yeah. Religious beliefs, that's it. It's all based on these beliefs.

[video] 14:51 Now, you might think this framework isn't all that groundbreaking. I mean, take the emperor penguins in Antarctica, for example. They hesitate to jump into the water until they are sure there are no seals around. So what kind of genes could help a penguin survive in this environment? Well, if the penguin's set of genes make it more likely to be timid, the penguin might stay back until someone braver tests the-

15:09 Aren't they sick of shoving those 3D animations? Because to the viewer, if they would have intelligent viewers, it would automatically mean, this is fake, this is not real. Show us actual proof. That's how it should be. That's how it is for me.

[video] 15:27 water that way the penguin is at a lower risk of being eaten and has a better chance of surviving reproducing and passing on its timid genes here you can think about this either as the timid genes help the penguin or the penguin helps the timid genes either way works so is there any real benefit to viewing things from the gene's perspective Well, look at what happens when you use these two frameworks to explain altruistic behavior, which appears in a lot of places in nature. Take California ground squirrels, for example. Females will let out alarm calls if they spot a predator, like a fox or a hawk, to warn other nearby squirrels, even though this puts her survival at risk. The genes influencing this behavior surely don't help this squirrel. But can the squirrel still help the genes? I think this is a bit more clear if you think about the fact that most living things reproduce sexually.

16:10 It's for the species. It's to warn everybody. It's not to save something invisible that you imagine. What the fuck, man?

[video] 16:20 So a squirrel will get half its DNA from its mom and half from its dad, so it's actually sharing half its genes with each parent, but also any child that it has, it's also going to share half of its genes with the child, but also any siblings.

16:32 Again, you would have to prove that and we can see how DNA tests work.

[video] 16:41 But then if you take a step out to an uncle or up to a grandparent, then it's sharing one quarter and then another step out is one eighth.

16:49 Again, prove it.

[video] 16:50 You can't say you share a lot of genes with your immediate family.

16:56 These are just assumptions that they are talking about, based on nothing. This is absolutely anti-science.

[video] 17:05 And California ground squirrels, females in particular, they live around family. So if a squirrel has a set of genes that make her call out when she spots a predator, there is a very good chance that the squirrels that hear her warning call also carry those genes. Now, as a result of her alarm call, let's say the squirrel attracts a predator her way and it ends up getting eaten. This action cost the call genes the chance to pass themselves on to any future offspring in that squirrel. But if the warning call saved at least two copies of those genes in...

17:31 This makes no sense. It's not as if they make these calls and then they get eaten themselves. They do it from a distance and then they also run away.

[video] 17:44 Two of the squirrels relatives well then in total these two squirrels have a better chance of passing on the genes through their offspring Than that single squirrel did from the genes perspective.

17:54 This could be a good trade-off It doesn't yes exactly and that's what squirrels think about they go to school get brainwashed and then They talk to each other Do you want to save your genes? Yes, yes, I do. Okay. We cannot see them, but let's just believe in them. And do you also want to save them? Yes, of course. That's how it works.

[video] 18:20 all animals believe in something invisible matter which individual helps the genes replicate only that as many copies as possible survive this principle that altruistically helping your close relatives helps preserve your own genes is known as kin selection and the payoff behind any altruistic gesture under kin selection depends heavily on how related you are to the individuals you're helping because the less related you are the smaller the chances that you will share that particular gene with another individual and you can see this in nature

18:48 Man, I've never seen such a religious video in my life. Even a pastor talking in a church is way less religious. At least they will say something based on this reality. This is just... religious belief after religious belief and everything is based on religious beliefs. So it's complete nonsense. You couldn't possibly prove anything he says. Anything. I don't mean that maybe 0.1% could be proven. Nothing. 100% of what he says cannot be proven. How bad can a video be?

[video] 19:30 It doesn't matter how convoluted the pathway is, if a gene has a measurable effect on its own survival and replication, it will be subject to some amount of natural selection.

19:41 And surely the whole theory is a simplification.

19:52 It's not a theory. A theory would have to be based on something factual, something that you can sense. You have to know it and then you think about it. And that's how you create a theory. This is not a theory by definition. This is not even a hypothesis. This is a belief and seeing as you have to blindly believe in what he's saying, you can call it a religious belief.

[video] 20:21 But any theory or framework of nature is. And what we're covering in this video is an even more simplified picture of that framework. But that doesn't take away the fact that viewing the world through this lens has an incredible power to help us understand the process of evolution. It helps us understand why we see such a range of different behaviors in our world. Because fundamentally, those traits tend to cause the increasing prevalence of the genes they're associated with.

20:42 It's like the whole point is figure out what's true like get to the truth and this to me is the baseline truth of evolution is what I love about me right evolution, which is a religious belief is based on something which you have never observed and you care about the truth and The truth is this reality, it's nature, it's what you can sense, know, what is factual, that's the truth. How can the truth be something that you believe? Is the truth something you believe or something that you know? Simply answer this question. Come on. What the fuck?

[video] 21:26 In Veritasium is that we get to sort of unpack and dig under the hood. And it's what I loved about reading the Self-Gene book. So it really opened my eyes to this, you know, previously I was just probably thought at the level of the individual, but it makes more sense to think at the level of the gene. The feeling that you and every other living organism is being driven by some molecules deep in every cell is fundamentally unsettling and seems to remove agency from you as an acting, thinking being in the world.

21:57 Yes, exactly. You believe that there's something inside of you, something which nobody has ever seen, and then you don't have a... control over yourself. I guess that you could say that you don't feel like you have power. It takes the power away from you. That's how religions work. Christians do the same. They say that God decides everything. It's everything in God's hands. And you do the same. And you don't realize it. Instead of talking about this actual reality, what's going on here, what you can sense, what is real, who has the power here? You! Not something you imagine.

[video] 22:45 Yeah, it's pretty grim. But whether or not you agree with the fact that...

22:51 The fact. My religious belief. Ah, f*** off.

[video] 22:56 We might be controlled by our genes and we're simply their flesh robots. Right. I think it's kind of unreasonable and unrealistic to go through life thinking that every decision is governed by this. It doesn't really do you any good. Because we perceive the world as individuals. So I think it's very beneficial to see yourself as your own thing.

23:13 I can't believe that people actually seriously create these kind of videos. If it was a fantasy cartoon for children, then I could understand it. You have little blobs, they fly around, circles appear around them, by chance, magically. Nobody can explain it, but there's no need to explain it if it's fictional. As long as you would write that, In the title or the description it would be fine. Then they form groups, bigger blobs appear, eventually fish appear out of nowhere, they start breathing outside of the water, and then eventually they turn into humans. It's ridiculous, but as long as you call it a fantasy story or a religious belief, then it's fine. Who cares?

24:10 But this channel is all about science, and as you can see, it's all pseudoscience. Haha. Science is you knowing something. You have to be able to observe it, sense it. It cannot be something that you believe. That's the opposite of science. And this video was the opposite of science.

24:34 A scientific experiment is an experiment that you can test and repeat. You can always repeat it because it's real. And that's why you can do these tests. It's not about believing something. It's not about somebody telling you a story, you read about it, or you watch a video, and then you believe it. Oh yes, this could be true. That's not science. That's the opposite of science.

25:05 People really completely are going against science today. It's actually alarming what's going on right now. Thanks for watching.