Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
cdk007, your video is self-contradictory. Genetic populations are as stable as they are because of error-correcting mechanisms in sequencing and redundancies in the genome. Also, the simulator is simulating cross-breeding, *not* Darwinian evolution. What you are doing is like mixing different colors of paint and creating new colors, but you never end up with anything other than paint.
@benpipercom "What you are doing is like mixing different colors of paint and creating new colors, but you never end up with anything other than paint."
Yeah, strange, but mixing different life and creating new life never ends up anything other than life....
You seem to willingly not understand the concept of this simulation, with all its simplicity...
For those who think that because he programmed it himself means that he could have tweaked the parameters to his favour, simply learn MATLAB and look at his code.
But if the predator does not evolve, and all organisms stay alive, the predator dies away, so when they do start mutating badly, they won't get killed by the predator, for it has gone extinct, so the organism overpopulates, therefore consuming it's resources and dooming the environment, right? But with predators evolving, they keep the organisms in place. and with some surviving, they also keep the predators in place. Then again, if the organism's prey evolved too, the enviornment would be OK.
Evolution supposedly evolved a spell checker, so mutations wouldn't happen within the DNA thus making evolution even harded to happen? LOL evolution fail.
Good example, but this does not disprove Creationism is the least. It's undeniable that Micro-Evolution occurs, the fitting of a creature to it's environment. In terms of Macro-Evolution though, saying people and birds were at one time related, is not supported at all. The claim "have no understanding of what evolution really is" somewhat goes against you in this.
The spread of misinformation is something I to wish to decrease. Though evolution exists, it may never be proven on the macro scale
Question for the board. Secretariat had a mutant heart, 22 lbs. vs. avg. 8 lb. heart for a thoroughbred horse. His heart allowed him to run faster than any horse in known history. Arguably his mutation was good. None of his offspring had extra large hearts. Why was the mutation for an extra large heart not selected and passed to his offspring? That is how natural selection is supposed to work, right?
Now I have a question. Are us humans still evolving? Well no predators or anything does it mean that for example our teeth will be deformed? :O Does it mean the something will decay?
@zajec11 every single species is evolving as we speak. evolution does not have a goal, it just changes species to adapt to environmental changes better.
and it is impossible to predict what happens, since chance always has a small part in evolutionary process.
We now have 7 billion humans on this planet, way too many people to change our species. We also aid the weaker people in our society, so people with bad genes will still survive.
And sexual selection barely takes place, either, since most people will get a mate (and hard working people, who are generally better for society, have a less social live and therefore lower reproduction, so it's anti-evolution)
@Thunderios to not evolve is impossible. when ever a human is born, it has gene mutations, which makes it different from its parents. which is evolution.
you cannot be born without any gene mutations. every single specie evolves all the time. even humans.
@OmfgItsHenu Yeah, I suppose that's called evolution, too. The next generation has slightly different genes from the previous one. But we don't really change all that much, since there's barely any selective pressure at all. And our numbers are so large that we won't all change in a certain way, or speciate, or anything.
@ianman6 It's diffrent for us, because we're so ahead of EVERYTHING, that we only need Three things, to survive. Opposable thumbs. Language. Intellegence.
@HellHound60248 We aren't 'ahead' of anything. Evolution isn't linear. We have evolved to perfectly fit our ecological niche, and those features which allowed us to do this (such as the ones you mention above) also give us the ability to have some measure of control over our evolution. However, as I stated earlier, we aren't free from selective pressure. Good looking rich men still get laid more ;)
@ianman6 What I mean, is, that like, a tiger cant just Slam down your door, walk upstairs and kill you, then travel back out of your town, and into the wild. Or, how you can shoot an animal, but it can't shoot you. or how you can climb a ladder to safety, but only humans can follow. You know what I mean?
Its quite simply a case of the encounter with the lion. two people in Africa encounter a lion, one immediately puts on his runners. The other turns and says, "what are you doing? You can't out run a lion." The first turns back and says, "I don't have to out run the lion. I just have to out run you."
Owchywawa's response to this video claims that the deleterious mutation rate is, in reality, so high (much higher in reality than what CDK uses in this vid) and the mutation strength so small that the deleterious mutations WILL, in fact, cause the genome to decay (and relatively rapidly too, with TWO THOUSAND) deleterious mutations present in any given individual after just 2000 generations)...
...but what I don't get about that is, wouldn't that mean, if he's right, that the genomes of all things are falling down around our ears even as we speak? You'd think, therefore, that we'd see the genomes of rapidly reproducing organisms (such as bacteria, which have one generation every 10 minutes, or so I've read) quite literally disintegrating before our very eyes, and yet we don't...
...now, I'm a bit of a lay-man in the sense that I'm going into engineering rather than evolutionary biology, and thus I have not studied the latter extensively, but am I somewhere close to being correct, CDK? Or is there another reason why Owchy is wrong? Or (Gasp!) could he even be right?
@SirBroadsword This is true. Check out John Sanford, Cornell University, in his book,Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome. The human genome is indeed deteriorating due to accumulation of mutations. Sanford has 25 patents and is the inventor of the gene gun.
Your I.Q. does not serve your ambitions well - if you can't see why your assumptions are silly, you should spend your time on things you are better equipped to understand.
this blew my mind.. especially at 8:36.. because i really thought that humans would stop evolving before watching this video because of my idea that us as a human race, are out of predators, because we essentially became the predators ourselves. but your point that natural selection is inevitable gave me some hope! we've become predators of each other, now i see why racism exists lol
@larry89 Humans are not evolving. All we ever see is variation in the genome, like differences in eye color, or skin color, height, weight, variances in abilities, such as music and athleticism. These differences have always been expressed within the genome. None of this is evolution. The folks who built the pyramids are no different from us genetically, other than they probably had a few less deleterious mutations. We haven't improved genetically since humans first appeared on the earth.
@achilles197474 We have actually been able to track down a person who had a mutation that prevented atherosclerosis. Of course, humanity hasn't had this mutation, because we live separated, so we won't have that many new mutations in common. Also, people that have milk-producing animals have a gene that makes them lactose tolerant, whereas other people don't have that.
It is also very had to spot new mutations, since we all have so many genes, and it's very difficult to just read someone's DNA.
@shoshanish I didn't say that. I said that when you look at how many people can drink milk, you see that there are more such people in societies that depend on milk producing animals than in societies that don't need those animals. So, evolution selected for people that could drink milk in places where you needed to drink milk, but didn't select in places where milk wasn't around. So, it's an obvious sign of evolution.
@achilles197474 Dude we evolved in Africa where people were black, now there are white people and that just because of the difference in light and vitamin D production in the skin, we have wisdom teeth that are too big for our mouths now because of the discovery of fire.
we will evolve further because our fat kids sit in front of the TV rather than playing.
But what make me laugh about creationists is how do they explain
Nice video, you put a good amount of work into it with the simulations, I like that. I don't know why some people don't understand Evolution, I've understood since I was a kid and it was explained to me once. It's just reasonable and doesn't rely of magic. However I will say that symmetry in the universe and the elegance of things like Evolution make me wonder if the big bang really was just a mindless chaotic event.
Best example of mutations to be are virus' which reproduce at sucha rate teh mutations, better or for worse can be recorded, the beter ones survive of course, and become resistant to drugs, where as the poor mutations just die out.
"Polemic"? Given the obsessed, uncivilized behaviour of many creationist posters on the message boards of evolution videos, where they know perfectly well they won't get a positive reception, the path taken by cdk007 is very much the high road, in my opinion. When people's fantasies are so incompatible with reality, you do the fantasizers a disservice by letting them think there's a way to reconcile fantasy and reality.
Discovered in 2003: The underlying law of nature. . Discovered in 2008: The empirical process by which one may identify the underlying law of nature first hand, for oneself. . This knowledge comes with no middleman wearing a fancy hat, cape, scarf, ring or necklace to obey and pay. . Think about it. . The underlying law of nature is the observable, constant, most fundamental way of all things -- all matter, energy, forms, forces, thoughts, behaviour, events and conditions. . Google it.
Strictly speaking, genomes (as we know them) may indeed decay as the universe ages to the point where molecular structures simply break down due to entropy. But this is analogous to the gas in your car leaking out as the car gets so old that the gas tank begins to rust out (never mind all the other problems that are likely to happen first)
How did plants know that they needed lovely flowers to attract bees? How did these plants reproduce when they had not yet evolved flowers? If they can't reproduce then how do they evolve? How did evolution know that the bee needed its "bees knees" to carry pollen? How did evolution know that the bees needed a long tongue to get the nectar out of the flower? How did the flower know to make nectar for the bee? Can bees survive without flowers? Can flowers survive without bees? Which came first?
@0OoJoshuaoO0 The flowers clearly came first. Flowers don't make nectar for the bees, silly. That's like saying a tree grows leaves only so caterpillars can reproduce. If you believe that, I feel sorry for you. As for the bees knees, evolution did not know they were needed, a genetic alteration allowed for a sticky substance to form on the legs of bees. Over time, those bees with the sticky stuff were able to better survive, thus they reproduced more successfully. Same with the tongue.
Great videos. For people with even a small understanding of science, I think they may understand what is being presented here, but for the general public, specially those not scientifically incline, they wont have a clue.
okay you decide to believe in Science and you can push your thoughts into my head as i stick my boot so far up your ass your "generations" will have an imprint of a black converse all star high top. That'll be "mutation" for you now wouldn't it? if you choose to hate religion go for it you think what you want still have a boot up your ass oh correction...Sneaker up your ass... And frankly have you ever heard of i dont give a shit about our population? i'll be dead by then!
John 1:1 says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. God's word contains true prophecy that actually happened.
@omgamicarnal that's your god... a muslim think another thing, and a jew another, and a buddist another, and a hindu another... that's what you religious people don't get.
Science and reasoning are key, no doubt. Both of which underpin 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
Explain-This advanced trilobite eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. Moreover the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to our own day without a single change. Such insects such as bees and dragon flies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite.* This situation disproves the evolutionary thesis that living things evolved progressively from the primitive to the complex.
(*) R.L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing, Oxford University Press 1995
The trilobite eye did not emerge 'in a perfect state'. The first fossilized record of it may have been dated to 530 Mya, but there are little to no researchers (besides the hacks at the Discovery Institute) who would have the audacity to make the claim you just did. The fact that it mistakenly alludes to evolution as an increase in complexity makes it quite clear this is nothing more than vacant Creationist propaganda.
David Raup, a professor of geology at Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago universities, says that, "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today.
David Raup, 'Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology', Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, cilt 50, Jan. 1979, p. 24.
Also worth the mention:
Modern-day insects like the dragonfly possess the same eye structure as the trilobite.
Quote-mining will get you nowhere. Raup is an evolutionist who was arguing against gradualism in favor of punctuated equilibrium. I mean really, is that the best you can come up with? Dishonestly quoting people out of context, a blatant lie?
When you're reduced to lying to support your position, doesn't that ring a bell that your position may be weak and unfounded? I mean I really, really don't get it...
This to me is really deluded. How you can twist it in your favour when he does admit to some change but also clearly states that natural selection cannot be supported by the complicated and gradual change even with more fossil evidence.
It appears to me that you can easily take the real meaning out of context to benefit your theory and ignore the facts. Its quite disturbing if you have a scientific background. I am even more concerned now!
what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.
So yes there is some minute changes refering to horses in N America but not enough to support the theory.
Note that you haven't included the entire quote, and are instead using the quote out of context to support a view not held by the person you are quoting. That is the definition of delusion; and erroneous belief that is held in spite of evidence to the contrary. You are manipulating quotes to support views that are contradicted by evidence.
Actually to me the last sentence summarizes the entire paragraph. Im sure we can agree:
"natural selection cannot be supported by the complicated and gradual change even with more fossil evidence" that is a fair conclusion and doesn't matter if you read the whole thing. There's no manipulation at all as It speaks for itself in fairness. It Took Edison thousands of attempts and so maybe in time you will get your evidence. Until then skeptics have every right to exist!
From the beginning of the article (emphasis my own):
"We must distinguish between the FACT OF EVOLUTION -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the EXPLANATION OF THIS CHANGE. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be."
Ernst Mayr, the doyen of Darwinism, makes this comment on the subject:
The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless'.
But let me guess its out of context....lol.
The theoreticians of punctuated equilibrium have made one important, contribution to science: They have clearly shown that the fossil record conflicts with the concept of evolution.
After the paragraph you dishonestly quote-mined Raup goes on to state:
"Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."
@xxxrokkstarrxxx No mutation can develop genetic information or add any new data to it. Mutations lead solely to a loss of, or damage to, existing data. The wholesale mutations imagined by the adherents of punctuated evolution would actually represent reductions and defects in genetic information.
So even the contingency idea fails on this account. There is no evidence to suggest mutation is beneficial and can happen quickly in a small part of the population and find an exact freak to mate.
Now clearly what you fail to understand, because you haven't bothered to read nor comprehend the nature of Raup's contentions, is that Raup is arguing that natural selection ALONE cannot account for the TYPE of changes observed in the fossil record, and thus proposes punctuated equilibria.
What is important to note is that he acknowledges both that natural selection DOES work, and that evolution is a FACT.
Wow you guys basically couldn't find enough fossil evidence to back the claim up so you come up with Punctuated Equilibria - according to the theory, certain terrestrial animals might have turned into giant whales as a result of sudden and comprehensive changes, within a single generation. These claims conflict with all known genetic, biophysical and biochemical laws, and were about as scientific as tales of princes turning into frogs. You might as well beleive in miracles!
"...according to the theory, certain terrestrial animals might have turned into giant whales...within a single generation."
No, Raup is saying that at the level of species or genera the transition does not appear as fine as we would expect from pure gradualism driven by natural selection alone. There is a plethora of fossil intermediaries between higher classifications like classes, orders, and families (like between reptiles and mammals or reptiles and birds for example).
So basically, you couldn't come up with a coherent contention against evolution and instead resort to quote-mining and being dishonest. No one is saying that punctuated equilibria occurs 'within a single generation' except for you.
So if you're going to play with a straw-man, then have fun playing with yourself, because you're not even raising any valid objections to what the hypothesis actually says.
Gould and Eldredge proposed that living species came about not through a series of small changes, as Darwin had maintained, but by sudden, large ones.
According to this theory, a species of reptile survives for millions of years, undergoing no changes. But one small group of reptiles somehow leaves this species and undergoes a series of major mutations, the reason for which is not made clear. Those mutations which are advantageous quickly take root in this restricted group?????
You obviously do not have even a cursory familiarity with Gould's work outside of the quotes you've mined.
Punctuated equilibria merely proposes that organisms evolve through gradual steps, but the rate that those steps occur varies. Coupled with the fact that the rate of fossilization is also variable, this leads to a fossil record that is sometimes very rich and sometimes sparse in regards to a particular progression of morphological change.
In short, Gould accepted gradualism and it is still well supported. Punctuated equilibria merely explains why the fossil record is sometimes sparse and sometimes very rich in regards to time and geography.
Again, you aren't raising any contentions against what punctuated equilibria actually states, and therefore are succeeding in nothing more than playing with yourself.
Lol.... Intelligence is not the question here... I perhaps lack the wild imagination you need to accept such a fantasy! Sorry to hurt your beleif system!
Sure... im sure it makes you feel better.... The intelligence is lacking in the argument thats supports evolution. Especialy those that come from a so called scientific background. It fails to be convincing on numerous accounts both Scientifically and mathematically.
So, since when did a series of out-of-context quotes become a valid form of scientific argument? You clearly fail on all levels; honesty, integrity,and reading comprehension. You haven't provided any valid contentions against evolutionary theory, and have only succeeded in proving your willingness to be dishonest.
To my mind, rokkstarr (and later jtyranus) rocked the sh*t out of MissionWorldPeace, but the creationists are probably thinking the same thing about MissionWorldPeace. That he rocked the sh*t out of rokkstarr (and later jtyranus), that is. What I'm trying to get across here is that, even though these creation vs. evolution arguements are entertaining, they are pointless. Both parties walk away thinking they've won, even though no one really does. Oh, and often logical fallacies are used.
fair enough. You do have a point. Information can often be gleaned from these arguments (even if you have to actually track it down to make sure you've got it right)
Is evolution causing humans to progressively become blind creatures? Because by natural selection those that are blind or have bad eyesight would not be selected for and the genes that cause them would not be passed on. But since humans have glasses, the genes that cause bad eyesight are passed on. Natural selection can't do its job anymore right? Are humans at a point where we don"t need to genetically adapt anymore?
First, most eye problems come from sitting too close to the TV or laptop, staring at the sun or into pure darkness, and even physical damage. These are not genetic and can't be passed genetically.
Second: let's say that eyesight does have a genetic component. Humans have developed technology that essentially diminishes the mutation strength.
It's not "don't need to". The mutation is so weak it can easily spread through generations. AND 20000 generations (at 18 yrs/gen) ~360000 yrs
To some degree yes, but this is not necessarily a good thing. We can save people with cancer so that there is practically no difference in survivability, but I'm sure the guy would say be better off without cancer to begin with.
We would never become blind as a species as we still need our eyesight for survival. Those who wear glasses rarely have vision problems so severe that it would impede on their survival, especially as even in ancient times people lived in social groups where close kin would have likely taken care of those with limited capacities.
However, there was an article recently published in Nature that indicates our brains are shrinking, we've lost like 150cc in the last 7500 years.
Well it doesn't have to be blindness. It could be any number of other bad things caused by genetic mutations that we solve by wearing something or surgically inserting something.
My point was that because the problem is genetic and we solve it non-genetically, natural selection is becoming less of a factor in human evolution and we allow all sorts of genetic mutations to build up without any being selected for or discarded.
There is actually an interesting article on LiveScience about the future of human evolution. Selection pressure is apparently still just as much a factor as it ever was. Here's the link if you're interested:
Impressive! I bet if you included sexual selection where an organism with mutations is possibly less attractive, the genome would be even more stable.
WOW!! Praise and Glory be to the Almighty God who created the wonder system of mutation and natural selection!!! He's soooo much more impressive than the God who just waved his magic wand and poofed everything into existence.
just to play off of your sarcasm, it's too bad the holy books from the faiths of the abrahamic god don't mention the words evolution and natural selection, but arcane superstitious babble :-)
evolution is not against god. please do not go blind. just becouse some people say that god created us the way we are, doesnt mean he actually did. evolution doesnt explain the very first life.
and the 'believers', please, just start to think. please. isnt creating a computer that produces calculators better than creating many calculators? if you dont think evolution exists, than my god surpasses yours. sorry. evolution rocks Xj
Excellent video! Too bad most creationists will check out due to the boredom of not knowing what you're talking about, approximately 5 seconds into it.
....While chasing the roadrunner "small minded atheists" are...they deny the supernatural...
I remember the fossils of this foolish ancestor the taung man, it was said it has a small brain just like all the atheist chatters we have here. This maybe the reason why their prophet Charles Darwin easily convinced them their grandparents are gorilla, their dads and moms chimps, uncle and cousin are baboons...LOL what a jerk. hehehe:D
No, because he made beneficial mutations extremely rare in that simulation. The plateau is the time between when the (n)th positive mutation stabalized the mutation count at a higher level than previously and when the (n+1)th positive mutation started raising mutation levels. (keep in mind that in this simulation, higher ratings on the "mutation count" count as an improvement of the genome).
matlab? well if you can do C you do matlab, it's absolutly essential to engineering aswell...eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
the whole 'purple skin' thing isn't tzeentch at all, it should be a shifting warping chaos of colors! so yeah, grow some claws, tentacles, and limbs then you can start to warp in color until you're like a great big Gay Pride rainbow of EVIL!!!!
cdk007 videos are better than ALL the evolution books I read COMBINED. They are simple, straight to the point, supported by actual data, simulations, and testable predictions, and technical details enough to satisfy curiosity.
Most of the evolution books I read (like those of Dawkins) don't come close to this as they're pretty dumped down and quite GENERIC. Thank you cdk007!
Not to argue but I would guess that actual scientific books were even better. But then a scientist will arive at his more accurate, precise view of evolution by readin countless books and studies and comparative studies and arrive at his higher (or panoramatic) view of the subject over a long period of time. For the rest of us it's CDK and Dawkins. Also I wouldn't be to hard on Dawkins. He may not argue as scientifically as he should, but has dedicated himself to educating simple people. 's good
BTW: I read Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish". It was very clear, readable but at the same time scientifically precise.. a must read.
The problem is the more scientific a book gets, the more the author assumes the fact of evolution, assumes advanced knowledge of biology and then gets down to specifics. Also scientific books will really ignore religion and/or previously refuted or resolved issues.
It says in the video it's made with Matlab. As for the comments saying the simulator is rigged, download the files used for it and see the inner workings of it for yourself.
so if a population only had beneficial mutations (perfect beings), no deleterious mutations and, for example totally retarded predators then the population eventually would shrink to exactly one specimen, right?
Now thats how god ended up alone, and now he needs imperfect beings.
this really makes sense cause a perfect man and a perfect woman would always quarrel as they both think they were absolutely right and would never have sex, l dont need no simulation to understand that!!
Very convincing and obviously correct but i can hear the likes of Hovind now "Yeah but the algorithm in your Population Simulator has been rigged" Has your algorithm been independantly validated? No i am not a Creationist but we should not blindly accept that the "rules" behind the simulator are correct. I am fascinated by the calculation (as long as it is not too complex). The truth is that just because there CAN be degredation Creos twist it to say that degredation should be the NORM.
well one thing cdk007 simulation he used extreme section pressure to get his results. I used the most extreme type selection and got the same results with the Mendel's Account with pop size of 2000. The Mendel's Account is peer reviewed simulator. His simulation only plots mutation number and not fitness. There is equation for pop size the sample equation is 1/(2 n)=section threshold. at pop 10,000 the threshold is 0.00005 any below that will be unselectable.
with beneficial mutations decay possible. it looks like Cdk007 confused and thought Truncation selection was natural section, Also he would have to have very very low mutation rate. I think I had debate with CdK007. He could not get that selfing population of fish is doom to decay just because to him it look like they were not decaying. The Clam of decay came from DR Sanford a geneticist. His clam best applies to humans best we have high mutation rate and big genome.
As i said i am not wholly convinced by simulators.
With the best will in the world a similator is as only as good as it's theoretical algorithm. The random constituent (i.e. not the NS constituent) of the evolutionary process is almost impossible to quantify or to summarise into a predictable formula. We cannot begin to understand what causes the apparent randomness of mutation and Gnetic Drift. I much prefer the hard undisputable evidence of geology, geography and palaeontology.
agree because we dont know everything about evolution
but disagree because what he has said is the basic knowlegde of evolution. we have the basics figured out. we just dont have the details. dont worry eventually we will get more details. but we never will know it all, its impossible to know all of it. if one knew exactly how evolution worked perfectly wiht all the details itd make thier head blow. keep that in mind please.
grintshunts123. I think we basically do agree,. As usual the issue is not whether Evolution is true (that is an undeniable fact) but it is rather the actual mechanisms that we do not fully understand. Of course we understand so much more since Darwin formulated his theory (all of it supporting of that theory). Yes we will discover much more and hopefully this include the apparent randomness of what actually causes a mutation.
I think that the comment about the plateau is misleading, as that plateau does exist (almost). Humans have reduced MANY (though not all) sources of attrition, and have massively reduced the exposure to natural selection, which would limit human evolution,while not to a stop, at least to a slower rate.
Maybe natural selection due to large predators, but certainly not natural selection caused by viruses and bacteria, especially in places without modern medicine. Just because we don't get eaten by lions if we are fat, doesnt mean some sort of natural selection is not still affecting us.Eventually we may get to a point where we are completely separate from the environment. But don't forget that sexual reproduction in humans is not random, humans choose mates based on successful characteristics.
Yeah, all fair points, but I do believe that if not now, at some point, human evolution will reach a point where it is concious choice(s) of the species rather than a reaction to an eternal environment.
Polygeny (where a trait is determined by the combined action of more than one gene) and pleiotropy (where one gene can affect several different traits) are ignored. Furthermore, recessive genes are ignored (recessive genes cannot be selected for unless present as a pair; i.e. homozygous), which multiplies the number of generations needed to get a new trait established in a population.
no it isnt ignored. these things do not matter because natural selection weeds animals out based on traits, not on genes, so it doesnt matter which genes create those traits or even how, when talking about evolution.
The problem of recessive genes leads to one facet of Haldanes Dilemma, where the well-known evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane pointed out that, based on the theorems of population genetics, there has not been enough time for the sexual organisms with low reproductive rates and long generation times to evolve. See review of ReMines analysis of Haldanes Dilemma.
Multiple coding genes are ignored. From the human genome project, it appears that, on average, each gene codes for at least three different proteins (see Genome Mania — Deciphering the human genome.Google " Creation On The Web"
In microbes, genes have been discovered that code for one protein when read in one direction and a different protein when read backwards, or when the reading starts one letter on. Creating a GA to generate such information-dense coding would seem to be out of the question. Such demands an intelligence vastly superior to human beings for its creation.
There is no problem of irreducible complexity with GAs (see Behes Darwins Black Box). Many biological traits require many different components to be present, functioning together, for the trait to exist at all (e.g. protein synthesis, DNA replication, reproduction of a cell, blood clotting, every metabolic pathway, etc.).
The mutation rate is artificially high (by many orders of magnitude). This is sustainable because the genome is small (see next point) and artificial rules are invoked to protect the best organism from mutations, for example.
Such mutation rates in real organisms would result in all the offspring being non-viable (error catastrophe). This is why living things have exquisitely designed editing machinery to minimize copying errors to the rate of one in about 10 billion (for humans).
Generation time is ignored. A generation can happen in a computer in microseconds whereas even the best bacteria take about 20 minutes. Multicellular organisms have far longer generation times.
The flip side to this is that high rates of reproduction are used. Bacteria can only double their numbers per generation. Many higher organisms can only do a little better, but GAs commonly produce 100s or 1000s of offspring per generation. For example, if a population of 1,000 bacteria had only one survivor (999 died), then it would take 10 generations to get back to 1,000.
Perfect selection (selection coefficient, s = 1.0) is often applied so that in each generation only the best survives to reproduce to produce the next generation. In the real world, selection coefficients of 0.01 or less are considered realistic, in which case it would take many generations for an information-adding mutation to permeate through a population
Putting it another way, the cost of substitution is ignored (see ReMines The Biotic Message for a thorough run-down of this, which is completely ignored in GAs—see Population genetics, Haldanes Dilemma, etc.).
Something always survives to carry on the process. There is no rule in evolution that says that some organism(s) in the evolving population will remain viable no matter what mutations occur. In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from
mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration. This has a ratchet effect that ensures that the GA will generate the desired outcome—any move in the right direction is protected.
A GA can only select for a very limited number of traits. Even with the simplest bacteria, which are not at all simple, hundreds of traits have to be present for it to be viable (survive); selection has to operate on all traits that affect survival.
A trait can only be quantitative so that any move towards the objective can be selected for. Many biological traits are qualitative—it either works or it does not, so there is no step-wise means of getting from no function to the function.
if you want to believe that an intelligent force guided evolution or created the universe in such a way that evolution could occur, this video will do nothing to dissuade you. It only shows that given a system with variation and selection over time, evolution will occur and keep negative variants from accumulating. The program simulates only variation, selection, and time, the fact that this leads to robust evolution is the whole point.
Yes, and because it takes intelligence to program a computer to simulate gravity I'm sure you subscribe to the idea of intelligent Falling, where god is constantly pushing us down, holding us to the earth.
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, kiddos, want to see a fairy tale that adults really believe? Google whale evolution and go watch a 7 minutes video on the PBS web site that shows how an ancient 200 pound wolf searched for food along the beach, wander out into the surf, and morphed (evolved) into a 100 ton whale. There is nothing scientific about it, but nonetheless, this is the fairy tale that some adults really believe! Especially comical are the nostrils migrating to the top of the head to become a blow hole!
achilles197474 4 months ago
I was going to call you out on forgetting genetic drift but you included it in the discription. Can I get matlab for free?
YesIamJames 4 months ago
stupid video for stupid people from stupid person
billytistrak 4 months ago
Comment removed
ketanovas 4 months ago
Dont worry dude! Evolution will take care of those dumb creationists.
tallibba 4 months ago
cdk007, your video is self-contradictory. Genetic populations are as stable as they are because of error-correcting mechanisms in sequencing and redundancies in the genome. Also, the simulator is simulating cross-breeding, *not* Darwinian evolution. What you are doing is like mixing different colors of paint and creating new colors, but you never end up with anything other than paint.
benpipercom 6 months ago
@benpipercom "What you are doing is like mixing different colors of paint and creating new colors, but you never end up with anything other than paint."
Yeah, strange, but mixing different life and creating new life never ends up anything other than life....
You seem to willingly not understand the concept of this simulation, with all its simplicity...
ketanovas 4 months ago
For those who think that because he programmed it himself means that he could have tweaked the parameters to his favour, simply learn MATLAB and look at his code.
lolcattycat 7 months ago
But if the predator does not evolve, and all organisms stay alive, the predator dies away, so when they do start mutating badly, they won't get killed by the predator, for it has gone extinct, so the organism overpopulates, therefore consuming it's resources and dooming the environment, right? But with predators evolving, they keep the organisms in place. and with some surviving, they also keep the predators in place. Then again, if the organism's prey evolved too, the enviornment would be OK.
HellHound60248 8 months ago
Evolution supposedly evolved a spell checker, so mutations wouldn't happen within the DNA thus making evolution even harded to happen? LOL evolution fail.
RespectMyHate 8 months ago
Good example, but this does not disprove Creationism is the least. It's undeniable that Micro-Evolution occurs, the fitting of a creature to it's environment. In terms of Macro-Evolution though, saying people and birds were at one time related, is not supported at all. The claim "have no understanding of what evolution really is" somewhat goes against you in this.
The spread of misinformation is something I to wish to decrease. Though evolution exists, it may never be proven on the macro scale
GilHeron 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Question for the board. Secretariat had a mutant heart, 22 lbs. vs. avg. 8 lb. heart for a thoroughbred horse. His heart allowed him to run faster than any horse in known history. Arguably his mutation was good. None of his offspring had extra large hearts. Why was the mutation for an extra large heart not selected and passed to his offspring? That is how natural selection is supposed to work, right?
achilles197474 8 months ago
I think this guy should register his powervideomaker
chopseh 9 months ago
Now I have a question. Are us humans still evolving? Well no predators or anything does it mean that for example our teeth will be deformed? :O Does it mean the something will decay?
zajec11 10 months ago
@zajec11 every single species is evolving as we speak. evolution does not have a goal, it just changes species to adapt to environmental changes better.
and it is impossible to predict what happens, since chance always has a small part in evolutionary process.
OmfgItsHenu 10 months ago
@OmfgItsHenu I would acttually disagree on that.
We now have 7 billion humans on this planet, way too many people to change our species. We also aid the weaker people in our society, so people with bad genes will still survive.
And sexual selection barely takes place, either, since most people will get a mate (and hard working people, who are generally better for society, have a less social live and therefore lower reproduction, so it's anti-evolution)
So overall, I don't think we evolve anymore
Thunderios 9 months ago
@Thunderios to not evolve is impossible. when ever a human is born, it has gene mutations, which makes it different from its parents. which is evolution.
you cannot be born without any gene mutations. every single specie evolves all the time. even humans.
OmfgItsHenu 9 months ago
@OmfgItsHenu Yeah, I suppose that's called evolution, too. The next generation has slightly different genes from the previous one. But we don't really change all that much, since there's barely any selective pressure at all. And our numbers are so large that we won't all change in a certain way, or speciate, or anything.
But, yeah, you're right, it still is evolution.
Thunderios 9 months ago
@zajec11 Mate selection is still in effect. The evolution game is totally different for our species though.
ianman6 9 months ago
@ianman6 It's diffrent for us, because we're so ahead of EVERYTHING, that we only need Three things, to survive. Opposable thumbs. Language. Intellegence.
HellHound60248 8 months ago
@HellHound60248 We aren't 'ahead' of anything. Evolution isn't linear. We have evolved to perfectly fit our ecological niche, and those features which allowed us to do this (such as the ones you mention above) also give us the ability to have some measure of control over our evolution. However, as I stated earlier, we aren't free from selective pressure. Good looking rich men still get laid more ;)
ianman6 8 months ago
@ianman6 What I mean, is, that like, a tiger cant just Slam down your door, walk upstairs and kill you, then travel back out of your town, and into the wild. Or, how you can shoot an animal, but it can't shoot you. or how you can climb a ladder to safety, but only humans can follow. You know what I mean?
HellHound60248 8 months ago
when i run your simulator i get the following error
??? In an assignment A(I) = B, the number of elements in B and I must be the same.
Error in ==> basicevo>run_Callback at 145
mt(1) = str2num(get(handles.dmr,'string'));
Error in ==> gui_mainfcn at 96 feval(varargin{:});
Error in ==> basicevo at 42 gui_mainfcn(gui_State, varargin{:});
??? Error while evaluating uicontrol Callback
Whats wrong?
filek1011 11 months ago
Its quite simply a case of the encounter with the lion. two people in Africa encounter a lion, one immediately puts on his runners. The other turns and says, "what are you doing? You can't out run a lion." The first turns back and says, "I don't have to out run the lion. I just have to out run you."
binaryblade2 11 months ago
Owchywawa's response to this video claims that the deleterious mutation rate is, in reality, so high (much higher in reality than what CDK uses in this vid) and the mutation strength so small that the deleterious mutations WILL, in fact, cause the genome to decay (and relatively rapidly too, with TWO THOUSAND) deleterious mutations present in any given individual after just 2000 generations)...
Continues...
SirBroadsword 1 year ago
...but what I don't get about that is, wouldn't that mean, if he's right, that the genomes of all things are falling down around our ears even as we speak? You'd think, therefore, that we'd see the genomes of rapidly reproducing organisms (such as bacteria, which have one generation every 10 minutes, or so I've read) quite literally disintegrating before our very eyes, and yet we don't...
SirBroadsword 1 year ago
...now, I'm a bit of a lay-man in the sense that I'm going into engineering rather than evolutionary biology, and thus I have not studied the latter extensively, but am I somewhere close to being correct, CDK? Or is there another reason why Owchy is wrong? Or (Gasp!) could he even be right?
SirBroadsword 1 year ago
@SirBroadsword This is true. Check out John Sanford, Cornell University, in his book,Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome. The human genome is indeed deteriorating due to accumulation of mutations. Sanford has 25 patents and is the inventor of the gene gun.
achilles197474 10 months ago
Your I.Q. does not serve your ambitions well - if you can't see why your assumptions are silly, you should spend your time on things you are better equipped to understand.
TREACLE97 1 year ago
this blew my mind.. especially at 8:36.. because i really thought that humans would stop evolving before watching this video because of my idea that us as a human race, are out of predators, because we essentially became the predators ourselves. but your point that natural selection is inevitable gave me some hope! we've become predators of each other, now i see why racism exists lol
larry89 1 year ago
@larry89
"now i see why racism exists"
aHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! xD
Nice one... but soooo inevitably true!
BTW same goes for MONEY and power greed, aka religious or political fanaticism, which also create wars.
melis256 1 year ago
@larry89 Humans are not evolving. All we ever see is variation in the genome, like differences in eye color, or skin color, height, weight, variances in abilities, such as music and athleticism. These differences have always been expressed within the genome. None of this is evolution. The folks who built the pyramids are no different from us genetically, other than they probably had a few less deleterious mutations. We haven't improved genetically since humans first appeared on the earth.
achilles197474 10 months ago
@achilles197474
well we havent been here for a billion years yet have we
larry89 10 months ago
@achilles197474 We have actually been able to track down a person who had a mutation that prevented atherosclerosis. Of course, humanity hasn't had this mutation, because we live separated, so we won't have that many new mutations in common. Also, people that have milk-producing animals have a gene that makes them lactose tolerant, whereas other people don't have that.
It is also very had to spot new mutations, since we all have so many genes, and it's very difficult to just read someone's DNA.
Thunderios 9 months ago
@Thunderios no they dont.....just because you have lets say a cow doesnt mean your allergic to milk, or if you dont have a cow you can eat milk.
shoshanish 9 months ago
@shoshanish I didn't say that. I said that when you look at how many people can drink milk, you see that there are more such people in societies that depend on milk producing animals than in societies that don't need those animals. So, evolution selected for people that could drink milk in places where you needed to drink milk, but didn't select in places where milk wasn't around. So, it's an obvious sign of evolution.
Thunderios 9 months ago
@achilles197474 Dude we evolved in Africa where people were black, now there are white people and that just because of the difference in light and vitamin D production in the skin, we have wisdom teeth that are too big for our mouths now because of the discovery of fire.
we will evolve further because our fat kids sit in front of the TV rather than playing.
But what make me laugh about creationists is how do they explain
1) Neanderthals
2) Dinosaurs
3) Heisenberg uncertainty principle
mrwideboy 8 months ago
Nice video, you put a good amount of work into it with the simulations, I like that. I don't know why some people don't understand Evolution, I've understood since I was a kid and it was explained to me once. It's just reasonable and doesn't rely of magic. However I will say that symmetry in the universe and the elegance of things like Evolution make me wonder if the big bang really was just a mindless chaotic event.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
Comment removed
gs992006 1 year ago
Best example of mutations to be are virus' which reproduce at sucha rate teh mutations, better or for worse can be recorded, the beter ones survive of course, and become resistant to drugs, where as the poor mutations just die out.
Kan2209 1 year ago
Very interesting, but this would be better without the anti-Creationist polemic. It distracts from the presentation.
DancingChristian 1 year ago
@DancingChristian
"Polemic"? Given the obsessed, uncivilized behaviour of many creationist posters on the message boards of evolution videos, where they know perfectly well they won't get a positive reception, the path taken by cdk007 is very much the high road, in my opinion. When people's fantasies are so incompatible with reality, you do the fantasizers a disservice by letting them think there's a way to reconcile fantasy and reality.
mosquitobight 1 year ago
@DancingChristian Aye.
Kan2209 1 year ago
Cool
kokopingo 1 year ago
00josh000 maybe if you watched the evolution videos you'd know dumb-ass
JM12101 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
No the best God could do was make you. ass munch.
mmnasir101 1 year ago
Strictly speaking, genomes (as we know them) may indeed decay as the universe ages to the point where molecular structures simply break down due to entropy. But this is analogous to the gas in your car leaking out as the car gets so old that the gas tank begins to rust out (never mind all the other problems that are likely to happen first)
Altimadark 1 year ago
How did plants know that they needed lovely flowers to attract bees? How did these plants reproduce when they had not yet evolved flowers? If they can't reproduce then how do they evolve? How did evolution know that the bee needed its "bees knees" to carry pollen? How did evolution know that the bees needed a long tongue to get the nectar out of the flower? How did the flower know to make nectar for the bee? Can bees survive without flowers? Can flowers survive without bees? Which came first?
0OoJoshuaoO0 1 year ago
@0OoJoshuaoO0 How did these plants reproduce when they had not yet evolved flowers?
Spores.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@0OoJoshuaoO0 Why would a 'god' even feel the need to Harry Potter us into existence?
flammingbutter 1 year ago
@0OoJoshuaoO0 The flowers clearly came first. Flowers don't make nectar for the bees, silly. That's like saying a tree grows leaves only so caterpillars can reproduce. If you believe that, I feel sorry for you. As for the bees knees, evolution did not know they were needed, a genetic alteration allowed for a sticky substance to form on the legs of bees. Over time, those bees with the sticky stuff were able to better survive, thus they reproduced more successfully. Same with the tongue.
lhvinny 1 year ago
i think its amusing that just about all of your videos attract Creationists like fly paper CDK.
Trolling your videos is like a hobby for these people.
AcanLord 1 year ago
beautiful !
Lesterernesto 1 year ago
Great videos. For people with even a small understanding of science, I think they may understand what is being presented here, but for the general public, specially those not scientifically incline, they wont have a clue.
Campineiroamericano 1 year ago
Comment removed
oanradukvids 1 year ago
Deniers of evolution are clearly ignorant to an exuberant amount of the factual data which supports the theory.
PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
anthraxmm 1 year ago
okay you decide to believe in Science and you can push your thoughts into my head as i stick my boot so far up your ass your "generations" will have an imprint of a black converse all star high top. That'll be "mutation" for you now wouldn't it? if you choose to hate religion go for it you think what you want still have a boot up your ass oh correction...Sneaker up your ass... And frankly have you ever heard of i dont give a shit about our population? i'll be dead by then!
Mattmeo11 2 years ago
Your religion doesn't approve of your homosexuality.
nilbud 1 year ago
as childish and unnecessary as this comment is, it still made me laugh :P
jennyinwaiting 1 year ago
gay
ps3fanboy57 2 years ago
John 1:1 says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. God's word contains true prophecy that actually happened.
omgamicarnal 2 years ago
@omgamicarnal that's your god... a muslim think another thing, and a jew another, and a buddist another, and a hindu another... that's what you religious people don't get.
goikolkm 2 years ago
Oh yeah? Well, Darwin is MY god - and he says you're talking complete crap.
The real difference is that Darwin isn't my imaginary friend.
mastermrt 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
omgamicarnal-- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.-- That explains everything, Of course.
lizazoon 1 year ago
Yeah but that's a pack of lies only fuckheads pretend to believe in. Leave the world of pretend and make believe behind, it's just a joke for kids.
nilbud 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science and reasoning are key, no doubt. Both of which underpin 'the attempted murder of God' - A critical book at a critical time, it reveals the secrets of science that comprehensively demolish the theory of Evolution and provides scientific proof for God - a scientific certainty kept hidden from the world that in this critical time in history can now be revealed.
byScrooby 2 years ago
lol at mission world peace and xxxrokkstarrxxx.
i liked this vid. it really helped understand with the simulator. i dont see how anyone with any sense can really deny what this vid is saying
SiMMkillsAll 2 years ago
Explain-This advanced trilobite eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. Moreover the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to our own day without a single change. Such insects such as bees and dragon flies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite.* This situation disproves the evolutionary thesis that living things evolved progressively from the primitive to the complex.
(*) R.L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing, Oxford University Press 1995
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
@MissionWorldPeace
The trilobite eye did not emerge 'in a perfect state'. The first fossilized record of it may have been dated to 530 Mya, but there are little to no researchers (besides the hacks at the Discovery Institute) who would have the audacity to make the claim you just did. The fact that it mistakenly alludes to evolution as an increase in complexity makes it quite clear this is nothing more than vacant Creationist propaganda.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
Ive already provided an accurate reference..... befor you make such accusations ..... read buddy. You clearly need too.
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
@MissionWorldPeace
...and your reference doesn't make the claim that you did. That claim was purely your own and not supported by the reference.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx
David Raup, a professor of geology at Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago universities, says that, "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today.
David Raup, 'Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology', Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, cilt 50, Jan. 1979, p. 24.
Also worth the mention:
Modern-day insects like the dragonfly possess the same eye structure as the trilobite.
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
@MissionWorldPeace
Quote-mining will get you nowhere. Raup is an evolutionist who was arguing against gradualism in favor of punctuated equilibrium. I mean really, is that the best you can come up with? Dishonestly quoting people out of context, a blatant lie?
When you're reduced to lying to support your position, doesn't that ring a bell that your position may be weak and unfounded? I mean I really, really don't get it...
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx
This to me is really deluded. How you can twist it in your favour when he does admit to some change but also clearly states that natural selection cannot be supported by the complicated and gradual change even with more fossil evidence.
It appears to me that you can easily take the real meaning out of context to benefit your theory and ignore the facts. Its quite disturbing if you have a scientific background. I am even more concerned now!
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
@MissionWorldPeace
For Raup's ACTUAL views on Creationism I suggest you look at the following:
"Geology and Creationism", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Mar. 1983, Vol. 54 No. 3 pp. 16-25)
"The Geological and Paleontological Arguments of Creationism" in Scientists Confront Creationism (1983), Laurie R. Godfrey
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx
what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.
So yes there is some minute changes refering to horses in N America but not enough to support the theory.
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
@MissionWorldPeace
Note that you haven't included the entire quote, and are instead using the quote out of context to support a view not held by the person you are quoting. That is the definition of delusion; and erroneous belief that is held in spite of evidence to the contrary. You are manipulating quotes to support views that are contradicted by evidence.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx
Actually to me the last sentence summarizes the entire paragraph. Im sure we can agree:
"natural selection cannot be supported by the complicated and gradual change even with more fossil evidence" that is a fair conclusion and doesn't matter if you read the whole thing. There's no manipulation at all as It speaks for itself in fairness. It Took Edison thousands of attempts and so maybe in time you will get your evidence. Until then skeptics have every right to exist!
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
@MissionWorldPeace
From the beginning of the article (emphasis my own):
"We must distinguish between the FACT OF EVOLUTION -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the EXPLANATION OF THIS CHANGE. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be."
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx
Ernst Mayr, the doyen of Darwinism, makes this comment on the subject:
The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless'.
But let me guess its out of context....lol.
The theoreticians of punctuated equilibrium have made one important, contribution to science: They have clearly shown that the fossil record conflicts with the concept of evolution.
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
@MissionWorldPeace
After the paragraph you dishonestly quote-mined Raup goes on to state:
"Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx No mutation can develop genetic information or add any new data to it. Mutations lead solely to a loss of, or damage to, existing data. The wholesale mutations imagined by the adherents of punctuated evolution would actually represent reductions and defects in genetic information.
So even the contingency idea fails on this account. There is no evidence to suggest mutation is beneficial and can happen quickly in a small part of the population and find an exact freak to mate.
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
@MissionWorldPeace
Now clearly what you fail to understand, because you haven't bothered to read nor comprehend the nature of Raup's contentions, is that Raup is arguing that natural selection ALONE cannot account for the TYPE of changes observed in the fossil record, and thus proposes punctuated equilibria.
What is important to note is that he acknowledges both that natural selection DOES work, and that evolution is a FACT.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx
Wow you guys basically couldn't find enough fossil evidence to back the claim up so you come up with Punctuated Equilibria - according to the theory, certain terrestrial animals might have turned into giant whales as a result of sudden and comprehensive changes, within a single generation. These claims conflict with all known genetic, biophysical and biochemical laws, and were about as scientific as tales of princes turning into frogs. You might as well beleive in miracles!
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
@MissionWorldPeace
"...according to the theory, certain terrestrial animals might have turned into giant whales...within a single generation."
No, Raup is saying that at the level of species or genera the transition does not appear as fine as we would expect from pure gradualism driven by natural selection alone. There is a plethora of fossil intermediaries between higher classifications like classes, orders, and families (like between reptiles and mammals or reptiles and birds for example).
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@MissionWorldPeace
So basically, you couldn't come up with a coherent contention against evolution and instead resort to quote-mining and being dishonest. No one is saying that punctuated equilibria occurs 'within a single generation' except for you.
So if you're going to play with a straw-man, then have fun playing with yourself, because you're not even raising any valid objections to what the hypothesis actually says.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx
Gould and Eldredge proposed that living species came about not through a series of small changes, as Darwin had maintained, but by sudden, large ones.
According to this theory, a species of reptile survives for millions of years, undergoing no changes. But one small group of reptiles somehow leaves this species and undergoes a series of major mutations, the reason for which is not made clear. Those mutations which are advantageous quickly take root in this restricted group?????
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
@MissionWorldPeace
You obviously do not have even a cursory familiarity with Gould's work outside of the quotes you've mined.
Punctuated equilibria merely proposes that organisms evolve through gradual steps, but the rate that those steps occur varies. Coupled with the fact that the rate of fossilization is also variable, this leads to a fossil record that is sometimes very rich and sometimes sparse in regards to a particular progression of morphological change.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
@MissionWorldPeace
In short, Gould accepted gradualism and it is still well supported. Punctuated equilibria merely explains why the fossil record is sometimes sparse and sometimes very rich in regards to time and geography.
Again, you aren't raising any contentions against what punctuated equilibria actually states, and therefore are succeeding in nothing more than playing with yourself.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
Within a single generation? You are not very intelligent are you?
jtyranus 2 years ago
Lol.... Intelligence is not the question here... I perhaps lack the wild imagination you need to accept such a fantasy! Sorry to hurt your beleif system!
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
Nope. It is intelligence. You are pretty much a complete moron if you cant even get the definition correct.
jtyranus 2 years ago
@jtyranus
Sure... im sure it makes you feel better.... The intelligence is lacking in the argument thats supports evolution. Especialy those that come from a so called scientific background. It fails to be convincing on numerous accounts both Scientifically and mathematically.
MissionWorldPeace 2 years ago
It appears you are ignoring the point. You dont even know what the theories state let alone enough to offer criticisms of them.
jtyranus 2 years ago
@
MissionWorldPeace
""Especialy those that come from a so called scientific background.""
So the in depth understanding of the subject which you are arguing against is your enemy is it?
fascinating, why is this i wonder?. Maybe its because you can`t present a case with your level of knowledge of the subject.
AcanLord 2 years ago
@MissionWorldPeace
So, since when did a series of out-of-context quotes become a valid form of scientific argument? You clearly fail on all levels; honesty, integrity,and reading comprehension. You haven't provided any valid contentions against evolutionary theory, and have only succeeded in proving your willingness to be dishonest.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
To my mind, rokkstarr (and later jtyranus) rocked the sh*t out of MissionWorldPeace, but the creationists are probably thinking the same thing about MissionWorldPeace. That he rocked the sh*t out of rokkstarr (and later jtyranus), that is. What I'm trying to get across here is that, even though these creation vs. evolution arguements are entertaining, they are pointless. Both parties walk away thinking they've won, even though no one really does. Oh, and often logical fallacies are used.
PistolOfShame 2 years ago
@PistolOfShame Idk about you, but I've learned a lot from this controversy and I think that counts for something.
owchywawa 2 years ago
fair enough. You do have a point. Information can often be gleaned from these arguments (even if you have to actually track it down to make sure you've got it right)
PistolOfShame 2 years ago
I have an honest question.
Is evolution causing humans to progressively become blind creatures? Because by natural selection those that are blind or have bad eyesight would not be selected for and the genes that cause them would not be passed on. But since humans have glasses, the genes that cause bad eyesight are passed on. Natural selection can't do its job anymore right? Are humans at a point where we don"t need to genetically adapt anymore?
aozf05 2 years ago
First, most eye problems come from sitting too close to the TV or laptop, staring at the sun or into pure darkness, and even physical damage. These are not genetic and can't be passed genetically.
Second: let's say that eyesight does have a genetic component. Humans have developed technology that essentially diminishes the mutation strength.
It's not "don't need to". The mutation is so weak it can easily spread through generations. AND 20000 generations (at 18 yrs/gen) ~360000 yrs
onijester56 2 years ago
@aozf05
To some degree yes, but this is not necessarily a good thing. We can save people with cancer so that there is practically no difference in survivability, but I'm sure the guy would say be better off without cancer to begin with.
owchywawa 2 years ago
@aozf05
We would never become blind as a species as we still need our eyesight for survival. Those who wear glasses rarely have vision problems so severe that it would impede on their survival, especially as even in ancient times people lived in social groups where close kin would have likely taken care of those with limited capacities.
However, there was an article recently published in Nature that indicates our brains are shrinking, we've lost like 150cc in the last 7500 years.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
Well it doesn't have to be blindness. It could be any number of other bad things caused by genetic mutations that we solve by wearing something or surgically inserting something.
My point was that because the problem is genetic and we solve it non-genetically, natural selection is becoming less of a factor in human evolution and we allow all sorts of genetic mutations to build up without any being selected for or discarded.
aozf05 2 years ago
@aozf05
There is actually an interesting article on LiveScience about the future of human evolution. Selection pressure is apparently still just as much a factor as it ever was. Here's the link if you're interested:
livescience com/history/091113-origins-evolving.html
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
there is supposed to be a - (dash) between 'evo' and 'lving'.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 2 years ago
Impressive! I bet if you included sexual selection where an organism with mutations is possibly less attractive, the genome would be even more stable.
sjh7132 2 years ago
WOW!! Praise and Glory be to the Almighty God who created the wonder system of mutation and natural selection!!! He's soooo much more impressive than the God who just waved his magic wand and poofed everything into existence.
averagebear1 2 years ago
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!
aozf05 2 years ago
just to play off of your sarcasm, it's too bad the holy books from the faiths of the abrahamic god don't mention the words evolution and natural selection, but arcane superstitious babble :-)
razaz03 2 years ago
evolution is not against god. please do not go blind. just becouse some people say that god created us the way we are, doesnt mean he actually did. evolution doesnt explain the very first life.
and the 'believers', please, just start to think. please. isnt creating a computer that produces calculators better than creating many calculators? if you dont think evolution exists, than my god surpasses yours. sorry. evolution rocks Xj
kutlubul 2 years ago
This life is just a test .
we are not here to make money and kick out in the holidays then leve all that & die .
evolotion even if its right .
who made the frist thing that exploded & become glaxy's and earth ?
everyday in your life is another chance for you .
thank you guys
stevawsome 2 years ago
Excellent video! Too bad most creationists will check out due to the boredom of not knowing what you're talking about, approximately 5 seconds into it.
MadeUThink 2 years ago
I think it should also be possible to proof this mathematically (for a given model). But I guess creationists do also deny mathematical proofs...
veers0r 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
....While chasing the roadrunner "small minded atheists" are...they deny the supernatural...
I remember the fossils of this foolish ancestor the taung man, it was said it has a small brain just like all the atheist chatters we have here. This maybe the reason why their prophet Charles Darwin easily convinced them their grandparents are gorilla, their dads and moms chimps, uncle and cousin are baboons...LOL what a jerk. hehehe:D
frenchyo7 2 years ago
7:39 why does it plateau? I'm assuming not competition because why would evolution restart later.
Golkarian 2 years ago
No, because he made beneficial mutations extremely rare in that simulation. The plateau is the time between when the (n)th positive mutation stabalized the mutation count at a higher level than previously and when the (n+1)th positive mutation started raising mutation levels. (keep in mind that in this simulation, higher ratings on the "mutation count" count as an improvement of the genome).
TakesTwoToTango 2 years ago
Beethoven!!!
...but really slow... :(
Daruqe 2 years ago
um cdk007 wtf is a MatLab? it says u have to copy the files to your matlab or somthing.
gruntshunts123 2 years ago
matlab? well if you can do C you do matlab, it's absolutly essential to engineering aswell...eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
tzeentch5 2 years ago
Tzeentch? Tzeentch? Aaaargh I am being consumed by Chaos! Ah! Grant me thy gifts o Great One!
(grows clawed arm, skin turns purple)
8DX 2 years ago
the whole 'purple skin' thing isn't tzeentch at all, it should be a shifting warping chaos of colors! so yeah, grow some claws, tentacles, and limbs then you can start to warp in color until you're like a great big Gay Pride rainbow of EVIL!!!!
tzeentch5 2 years ago
(ripples of other colours spread across the face of this young hero of Tzeentch as he is once more rewarded.)
Must pervert further Christians and teach them of evolution, then Tzeench may reward me once more. Aaaargh (twists in an agony of colour.)
8DX 2 years ago
Strange how decay is used by creationists, yet worthless minerals "decay" into diamonds and sapphires.
JacktheSmack 2 years ago
cdk007 videos are better than ALL the evolution books I read COMBINED. They are simple, straight to the point, supported by actual data, simulations, and testable predictions, and technical details enough to satisfy curiosity.
Most of the evolution books I read (like those of Dawkins) don't come close to this as they're pretty dumped down and quite GENERIC. Thank you cdk007!
q8mind 2 years ago
Not to argue but I would guess that actual scientific books were even better. But then a scientist will arive at his more accurate, precise view of evolution by readin countless books and studies and comparative studies and arrive at his higher (or panoramatic) view of the subject over a long period of time. For the rest of us it's CDK and Dawkins. Also I wouldn't be to hard on Dawkins. He may not argue as scientifically as he should, but has dedicated himself to educating simple people. 's good
8DX 2 years ago
BTW: I read Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish". It was very clear, readable but at the same time scientifically precise.. a must read.
The problem is the more scientific a book gets, the more the author assumes the fact of evolution, assumes advanced knowledge of biology and then gets down to specifics. Also scientific books will really ignore religion and/or previously refuted or resolved issues.
8DX 2 years ago
Thanks for the suggestion, just ordered this book :)
q8mind 2 years ago
This video is great. Five.
CatharticWeek 2 years ago
It says in the video it's made with Matlab. As for the comments saying the simulator is rigged, download the files used for it and see the inner workings of it for yourself.
julyzerg 2 years ago
1 star, no source of what simulation program you used. No graphs form real experiments shown.
spark300c 2 years ago
that would be true if he didn't provide the download link for the program
YurDunn 2 years ago
thats right folks ,get you some edumacation and learn how things really work!! Great videos. Each one teach one
mecca777 2 years ago
Wow, this made me subscribe.
AndreaZ64 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so if a population only had beneficial mutations (perfect beings), no deleterious mutations and, for example totally retarded predators then the population eventually would shrink to exactly one specimen, right?
Now thats how god ended up alone, and now he needs imperfect beings.
this really makes sense cause a perfect man and a perfect woman would always quarrel as they both think they were absolutely right and would never have sex, l dont need no simulation to understand that!!
RoastHardy 2 years ago
This was a true eye-opener double 0 seven! l mean cdk oh oh seven.
ps l do not believe in deities or gods, even if they existed because they dont have sex, l mean feelings, l mean whatever..
THNX bro l feel rich now!
RoastHardy 2 years ago
Comment removed
RoastHardy 2 years ago
Very convincing and obviously correct but i can hear the likes of Hovind now "Yeah but the algorithm in your Population Simulator has been rigged" Has your algorithm been independantly validated? No i am not a Creationist but we should not blindly accept that the "rules" behind the simulator are correct. I am fascinated by the calculation (as long as it is not too complex). The truth is that just because there CAN be degredation Creos twist it to say that degredation should be the NORM.
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
well one thing cdk007 simulation he used extreme section pressure to get his results. I used the most extreme type selection and got the same results with the Mendel's Account with pop size of 2000. The Mendel's Account is peer reviewed simulator. His simulation only plots mutation number and not fitness. There is equation for pop size the sample equation is 1/(2 n)=section threshold. at pop 10,000 the threshold is 0.00005 any below that will be unselectable.
spark300c 2 years ago
with beneficial mutations decay possible. it looks like Cdk007 confused and thought Truncation selection was natural section, Also he would have to have very very low mutation rate. I think I had debate with CdK007. He could not get that selfing population of fish is doom to decay just because to him it look like they were not decaying. The Clam of decay came from DR Sanford a geneticist. His clam best applies to humans best we have high mutation rate and big genome.
spark300c 2 years ago
As i said i am not wholly convinced by simulators.
With the best will in the world a similator is as only as good as it's theoretical algorithm. The random constituent (i.e. not the NS constituent) of the evolutionary process is almost impossible to quantify or to summarise into a predictable formula. We cannot begin to understand what causes the apparent randomness of mutation and Gnetic Drift. I much prefer the hard undisputable evidence of geology, geography and palaeontology.
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
i disagree, and agree at the same time.
agree because we dont know everything about evolution
but disagree because what he has said is the basic knowlegde of evolution. we have the basics figured out. we just dont have the details. dont worry eventually we will get more details. but we never will know it all, its impossible to know all of it. if one knew exactly how evolution worked perfectly wiht all the details itd make thier head blow. keep that in mind please.
gruntshunts123 2 years ago
grintshunts123. I think we basically do agree,. As usual the issue is not whether Evolution is true (that is an undeniable fact) but it is rather the actual mechanisms that we do not fully understand. Of course we understand so much more since Darwin formulated his theory (all of it supporting of that theory). Yes we will discover much more and hopefully this include the apparent randomness of what actually causes a mutation.
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
Stop making me know things!!!!!!!! But really thank you, keep up the good work.
zendarx2 2 years ago
This is in the playlist twice.
Eldxale 2 years ago
I think that the comment about the plateau is misleading, as that plateau does exist (almost). Humans have reduced MANY (though not all) sources of attrition, and have massively reduced the exposure to natural selection, which would limit human evolution,while not to a stop, at least to a slower rate.
theretard666 2 years ago
Maybe natural selection due to large predators, but certainly not natural selection caused by viruses and bacteria, especially in places without modern medicine. Just because we don't get eaten by lions if we are fat, doesnt mean some sort of natural selection is not still affecting us.Eventually we may get to a point where we are completely separate from the environment. But don't forget that sexual reproduction in humans is not random, humans choose mates based on successful characteristics.
charbroiledmonk1033 2 years ago
Yeah, all fair points, but I do believe that if not now, at some point, human evolution will reach a point where it is concious choice(s) of the species rather than a reaction to an eternal environment.
theretard666 2 years ago
well the republicans are not very good at THAT!!!...lol
they are all cheating.....
thats not a very successful trait.
deeter131 2 years ago
As copypasted article by Dr, Don Batten
hwd71 2 years ago
Genetic algorithms—do they show that evolution works?
hwd71 2 years ago
Polygeny (where a trait is determined by the combined action of more than one gene) and pleiotropy (where one gene can affect several different traits) are ignored. Furthermore, recessive genes are ignored (recessive genes cannot be selected for unless present as a pair; i.e. homozygous), which multiplies the number of generations needed to get a new trait established in a population.
hwd71 2 years ago
no it isnt ignored. these things do not matter because natural selection weeds animals out based on traits, not on genes, so it doesnt matter which genes create those traits or even how, when talking about evolution.
charbroiledmonk1033 2 years ago
The problem of recessive genes leads to one facet of Haldanes Dilemma, where the well-known evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane pointed out that, based on the theorems of population genetics, there has not been enough time for the sexual organisms with low reproductive rates and long generation times to evolve. See review of ReMines analysis of Haldanes Dilemma.
hwd71 2 years ago
Multiple coding genes are ignored. From the human genome project, it appears that, on average, each gene codes for at least three different proteins (see Genome Mania — Deciphering the human genome.Google " Creation On The Web"
hwd71 2 years ago
In microbes, genes have been discovered that code for one protein when read in one direction and a different protein when read backwards, or when the reading starts one letter on. Creating a GA to generate such information-dense coding would seem to be out of the question. Such demands an intelligence vastly superior to human beings for its creation.
hwd71 2 years ago
There is no problem of irreducible complexity with GAs (see Behes Darwins Black Box). Many biological traits require many different components to be present, functioning together, for the trait to exist at all (e.g. protein synthesis, DNA replication, reproduction of a cell, blood clotting, every metabolic pathway, etc.).
hwd71 2 years ago
The mutation rate is artificially high (by many orders of magnitude). This is sustainable because the genome is small (see next point) and artificial rules are invoked to protect the best organism from mutations, for example.
hwd71 2 years ago
Such mutation rates in real organisms would result in all the offspring being non-viable (error catastrophe). This is why living things have exquisitely designed editing machinery to minimize copying errors to the rate of one in about 10 billion (for humans).
hwd71 2 years ago
Generation time is ignored. A generation can happen in a computer in microseconds whereas even the best bacteria take about 20 minutes. Multicellular organisms have far longer generation times.
hwd71 2 years ago
The flip side to this is that high rates of reproduction are used. Bacteria can only double their numbers per generation. Many higher organisms can only do a little better, but GAs commonly produce 100s or 1000s of offspring per generation. For example, if a population of 1,000 bacteria had only one survivor (999 died), then it would take 10 generations to get back to 1,000.
hwd71 2 years ago
Perfect selection (selection coefficient, s = 1.0) is often applied so that in each generation only the best survives to reproduce to produce the next generation. In the real world, selection coefficients of 0.01 or less are considered realistic, in which case it would take many generations for an information-adding mutation to permeate through a population
hwd71 2 years ago
Putting it another way, the cost of substitution is ignored (see ReMines The Biotic Message for a thorough run-down of this, which is completely ignored in GAs—see Population genetics, Haldanes Dilemma, etc.).
hwd71 2 years ago
Something always survives to carry on the process. There is no rule in evolution that says that some organism(s) in the evolving population will remain viable no matter what mutations occur. In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from
hwd71 2 years ago
mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration. This has a ratchet effect that ensures that the GA will generate the desired outcome—any move in the right direction is protected.
hwd71 2 years ago
A GA can only select for a very limited number of traits. Even with the simplest bacteria, which are not at all simple, hundreds of traits have to be present for it to be viable (survive); selection has to operate on all traits that affect survival.
hwd71 2 years ago
A trait can only be quantitative so that any move towards the objective can be selected for. Many biological traits are qualitative—it either works or it does not, so there is no step-wise means of getting from no function to the function.
hwd71 2 years ago
cdk007 totally debunks himself in using an intelligenly programmed simulator to prove that no intelligence was necessary.
hwd71 2 years ago
if you want to believe that an intelligent force guided evolution or created the universe in such a way that evolution could occur, this video will do nothing to dissuade you. It only shows that given a system with variation and selection over time, evolution will occur and keep negative variants from accumulating. The program simulates only variation, selection, and time, the fact that this leads to robust evolution is the whole point.
AttemptingReason 2 years ago
Yes, and because it takes intelligence to program a computer to simulate gravity I'm sure you subscribe to the idea of intelligent Falling, where god is constantly pushing us down, holding us to the earth.
cdk007 2 years ago