{false accusations are NOT allowed on this channel}
To what supposed "false accusation" are you referring?
{Your comment was removed}
What comment did you remove? Unless I forgot something I posted, all my comments seem to still be posted
{First warning}
Despite the fact that you falsely accused Creationists of saying that the Flagellum walks? Neither on my channel comments nor on any of my videos do I delete any comments or block any YouTubers. Why would I deny myself fun?
@Chuichupachichi This channel has rules. Learn them or face the consequences.
Actually, you don't have to--as long as you debate HONESTLY, which creationists seem to have a real problem doing.
And it was kinesin we were talking about that the creationist say "walks." In ONE comment I made a mistake and called it "flagellum." It was a MISTAKE. GET OVER IT. What creationists say about kinesin IS A FUCKING LIE!!!
{kinesin we were talking about that the creationist say walks}
This video shows the Kinesin not as stationary, but as mobile. But it doesn't depict it as rolling, nor sliding, nor swimming. But rather, its depicted as having two limbs that alternately move past each other to advance the Kinesin in one direction or another. That's what we humans do with our legs when we walk
This video depicts the Kinesin as executing a walking motion. If Creationists lie, then this video lies!
@Chuichupachichi I did NOT FUCKING LIE--YOU just did! I took GREAT PAINS to point out that kinesin DOES NOT ACTUALLY MOVE IN THIS MANNER! And as I SAID IN THE VIDEO, if anyone DID program a robot to move the way kinesin ACTUALLY does, they'd be busted back to the assembly line!
You're a FUCKING LIAR. ALL creationists are liars!
The sad thing is, it doesn't even LOOK like a walking motion, if you check the ACTUAL microscopic photos. That's just how it's depicted in animations.
One must be a complete cretin to be convinced by this video. Creation ministries presented the robot story as a metaphorical example of what Evolutionists do regarding nature. However, within this video, Evolutionists prove to be even dumber yet. This video actually implies that robots are literally made by nature
After asserting that humans made the robot, the narrator said; "of course, modern robots are programmed (thats the making of robot) with evolutionary algorithms
{They were LITERALLY saying that the flagellum walks like a robot}
No Creationist or I.D. scientist says that the Flagellum walks. Everybody knows that the Flagellum has a rotary propeller that gives propulsion to the Flagellum as it swims its way around, performing its functions that it was designed to do
You fabricated a Straw Man & that is equivalent to being the "LIAR"!
@Chuichupachichi There is no such thing as evolutionists, just like there are no gravitationists. The video does not imply that nature makes robots. Do you know what an algorithm is? If you don't actually want to learn or have a real discussion why watch and comment?
What does that prove...aside from the fact that you're putting yourself in a position, from which, you're forced to necessarily resort to playing a game of semantics. If you don't like that word, you'll need to use another word to distinguish between persons such as yourself & persons such as myself. The word "Evolutionists" is used simply to distinguish between those who subscribe to theory of evolution & those who don't
There exist no Gravitationists because there exist no Anti-Gravitationists. You Evolutionists often compare Evolutionary Theory to Gravity Theory, implying that they're equally valid. However, the reason why all persons subscribe to the validity of gravity is because its plainly obvious from the fact that when we humans take a step, we don't float off into the sky. But we're told that Evolution can't be observed because it requires millions of years
{evolution is MORE valid and BETTER supported than gravity!}
I guess that means that if you jumped off of the roof of a skyscraper...sooner would you not splatter on the cement concrete, than would you be proved to not be biologically composed 100% of millions of retained, accumulated reproductive defects
{Evolution is observed ALL THE TIME}
You must be referring to the many examples of "speciation" that supposedly prove macro evolution? Each is a example of mere "variation"
@Chuichupachichi "You must be referring to the many examples of "speciation" that supposedly prove macro evolution? Each is a example of mere "variation""
Assertion without evidence, which no biologist agrees with.
{Assertion without evidence, which no biologist agrees with}
My evidence is the fact that no Biologist would agree with any assertion of that somebody has fixed the "species problem". However, thats the more intellectually involved, more complicated explanation that no evolutionist lay-person can recognize on their own because it requires a bit of critical thinking skills
Actually, come to think of it...no evolutionist lay-person can even recognize the obvious & simple proof that refutes claims of macro evolution with the fact that examples such as the "speciated" California Salamanders are all still Salamanders...simply greatly varied...as are all the evolutionist's presented examples of supposed evidence of macro evolution
@Chuichupachichi "examples such as the "speciated" California Salamanders are all still Salamanders.."
Salamanders is an ORDER. You STILL haven't learned basic taxonomy, have you?
I'll go you one better: they're all still Ensatina, the genus. But they're different SPECIES of Ensatina. This is not only verified, the transitionals are even still alive and well!
All you have proven is how ignorant you are and how easily you LIE.
@Chuichupachichi Our theory of gravity has MANY problems: it doesn't unify with the other 3 forces, there's no explanation for how it can work on a quantum level, it's inconsistent with observations (dark matter, dark energy), etc. Your bullshit example of jumping off a roof is just more pathetic desperation.
@shanedk I would like to make the point that the problem with a theory of quantum gravity is that there exists many problems in the context of mathematical description. I became aware of this while taking quantum field theory. However, if the Higgs boson is found, and there is already information being leaked that they may have already found the first remnants of the Higgs field. However it's faulty to make the assumption that the general relativity is faulty.
@shanedk No macro theory is going to propose dark matter or dark energy because it's a quantum mechanical mechnism. In other words, you don't need quantum mechanics to describe celestial events. You could, but it's too mathematically complex. Gravity only becomes problematic at the quantum level because a symmetry relationship to a quantum gauge theory has not been found. Either way, to devise a quantum gravity theory is going to have introduce some new radical thinking but ONLY in the quantum
@1czelaya There is no "only in the quantum realm." The macro realm is just a convergence of quantum probabilities that has the illusion of determinism, but we've seen lots of cases where the quantum leaks in (Casimir Effect, double-slit experiment, etc.).
@shanedk I'm well aware of those instances and there are many more instances were quantum effects take place at the macro scale (enzymatics, circuitary, electrodynamics, and the list goes on) however, in all these instances you're describing isolated systems. What I'm saying is that there is only a problem with gravity at the quantum realm because there is gravitional boson to propagate a gravitional field. The only time quantum gravity will take center stage are at the big bang or black holes.
@1czelaya Well we just don't know about Dark Matter yet; it may be another such case. And with Dark Energy, apparently there's something out there that's RESISTING gravity.
Yes, when you're talking about basketballs and satellites and pogo sticks and planets, the theory of gravity works quite fine. But it's still limited as to what it can describe, that's my point.
@shanedk "Well we just don't know about Dark Matter & Energy"... I suspect & many astrophysicist and cosmologist, in our department, their identity & description is going to be found at the quantum level. Particle physics is a zoo and there is so much richness and incredible complications dealing with symmetry that it's hard to find answers. Hopefully if quantum field theory is right about the Higgs and gravity does indeed have its own field, it will begin to shed light.
@shanedk "There is no "only in the quantum realm"... it depends, again, you don't need QM for most macro scale events. Classical mechanics, thermodynamics, & so forth are the correct mathematical language in their respective scales. I completely agree about the convergence principle that the Schrodinger equation, ultimately, converges to the equations of classical mechanics, but, again, that refortifies that QM becomes undescriptive because you lose anti-commutation(the heart of QM).
{there's no explanation for how it can work on a quantum level}
When everything else also is inconsistent with quantum science, that can't be correctly counted against gravity. Relativity beautifully explains the macro & quantum explains the micro
{it's inconsistent with observations (dark matter, dark energy}
When was the last time anybody observed "dark matter" & "dark energy"...aside from never? In contrast, during a eclipse, Einstein observed gravity bending that upon which lights travels
BTW, that thing upon which light travels, is mentioned within the Bible - "he stretches the heavens like the fabric of a tent"
@Chuichupachichi By the way, you claimed you could observe gravity by watching something fall. You don't have to see it yourself, only the effect it has. In the EXACT SAME WAY we have observed Dark Energy.
Yeah, and he shut it up with windows to keep the infinite "waters above" filling all of space from drowning the world, except for one incident involving cramming every species and eight guys into a tiny wooden crate.
@Chuichupachichi "he stretches the heavens like the fabric of a tent"
Quotemining the bible I see. The verse actually says "He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." This is the claim that the earth is flat and the sky is a dome. There is no way this verse can be interpreted as light getting bent by gravity.
{reason why people are anti-evolution is because of LIARS LIKE YOU}
Well, even if it means that I'll be falsely accused of being a liar, I certainly do hope that I'm one of the reasons why there exist persons that find it too ridiculously difficult to believe in "4 legged whales, Tyrannosaurus Chickens, ancestral bacterial forebears, Reptilian Crocodilians with big boobs" & that "Ida", the Marsupial version of a Rhesus monkey, is a more believable missing link than the frauds
{The video does not imply that nature makes robots}
Certainly it does. The narrator said; "modern robots are programmed with evolutionary algorithms, instead of having a software designed directly by humans". The implication is that evolutionary algorithms execute a process devoid of intelligent guidance & that solely random chance produces a variety of components that by some process of elimination, only the functional ones are selected for retainment. Thereby, incrementally
evolving mechanical structures that eventually result in functionally ordered systems. Evolutionists believe that this is a precise recreation of the theorized naturalistic processes that drive evolution. Thus, the narrator said; "instead of having a software designed by humans (intelligence). He's claiming that the evolutionary algorithms designed the robot's programming software. But evolutionists that buy into this charlatanry are too dumb to see it means algorithms grow on trees
Of course...its something completely foreign to Botany & Horticulture. Precisely as algorithms seem to be to evolutionists that believe this video. Your agreement with this video implies that human intelligences don't design evolutionary algorithms.
One irony is that producing computer software requires "pseudo random generators" because true randomness is mathematically non-existent
I thought Hermes was supposed to be knowledgeable???
@Chuichupachichi "Your agreement with this video implies that human intelligences don't design evolutionary algorithms."
DESPERATE bullshit. The point is that even though the algorithms themselves may be designed by humans, the METHOD THEY USE is random mutation followed by selection. The creationist claim is that these two things CANNOT be used to make working parts, and THEY ARE WRONG.
You show your desperation and dishonesty with every post.
@Chuichupachichi "One irony is that producing computer software requires "pseudo random generators" because true randomness is mathematically non-existent"
It is in chemistry, too, so again the point is invalid. "Randomness" when used in the context of mutation means "without regard to the ultimate effect on the organism."
Instead of having software designed directly by humans". That statement is alluding to, or implying that naturalistic, unintelligent processes (evolution) were responsible for the programming. First asserting one thing & then immediately after that asserting the opposite...it doesn't get any more ILLOGICAL than that...or CRETINOUS
Then regarding the Kinesin molecule, the Creationists referred merely to the fact that it walks. How that is accomplished is irrelevant
@Chuichupachichi "That statement is alluding to, or implying that naturalistic, unintelligent processes (evolution) were responsible for the programming."
.
There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of natural events which can cause specified information to originate by itself in matter. Therefore the origin of information must be non natural and non material. The concept of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy, always has been.
Shane if you are talking about you're video 51, then no, that is not what I meant. Bacteria contain specifed information already because they are already intelligently designed, so a few minor reshuffles here and there rearrange existing specified information. What I had mentioned was "specified information to originate by itself in matter", Maybe you could do a video on that topic.
@ozredneck22 Did you not WATCH the video? The new gene is, FROM START TO FINISH, NEW information! It shares NO amino acid sequences in common with the parent gene! It's NOT a "rearranging" of information, it is ABSOLUTELY 100% NEW INFORMATION!
Well it IS of course a rearranging of information.
That's what makes it NEW. When you move some letters in pat you get tap. And when you move some pixels in tap you get tad. All physics ever does is rearrange information. Photon here polarized this way moving this direction. Hits a proton, swap its direction with the proton's kinetic vector... Electrons in this, that, and those orbitals. Now rearranged into this combined orbital making a molecule...
We've had this discussion about Shannon Theory before with the dice.
That there is two copies of something rather than one is itself new information. If you can compress BEARD into some number of bits, you need a greater number to express BEARD BEARD. Duplication IS new information. The new information is that there IS a second copy. It happens again when you go to BEARD BREAD, and have to express there is a word, and then a second word like it, and then how it's different.
@rkyeun "That there is two copies of something rather than one is itself new information."
And I'm telling you that Shannon theory clearly calls it "redundancy" since it doesn't reduce uncertainty any further. You still have the same number of bits of ENTROPY, even if you do have a larger storage space. "BEARD BEARD" is completely compressible to "BEARD" without losing information.
It is not, and you do not. You are misapplying the redundancy in Shannon theory. It applies to signals, not to sources. Yes, you can filter the source BREAD BREAD into the signal BREAD, by throwing away the bits of extra information about how many times it repeats. You cannot un-reverse the signal BREAD into how many times BREAD was repeated to reconstruct the original information after that, because the source had more information which your signal now does not possess.
@rkyeun "You cannot un-reverse the signal BREAD into how many times BREAD was repeated"
You don't NEED to do so, because that doesn't tell you anything more about the picture! Remember, if it doesn't reduce uncertainty, it isn't information!
> "BEARD BEARD" is completely compressible to "BEARD" without losing information.
Computer programs are in binary. If you read them straight, they are a very large binary number. We can convert that number to unary, and express any computer program as the proper number of vertical lines. You claim that any number of repetitions is losslessly compressible to a single repetition.
For what you just said to be true, you must be able to uncompress Microsoft Windows from |
Because your usage of uncertainty is inconsistent with the way it is used in Shannon Theory.
The second BEARD comes as less a surprise than the first beard. As additional repeats accumulate, it becomes less surprising each time. I am more certain. I have information. I can compress BEARD BEARD BEARD BEARD into 4 BEARD which is much smaller. I could not compress 23 random characters in that way. Noise has more information.
I can compress 100000000 BEARD even smaller, 10^8 BEARD.
At no point in Shannon Theory do I play a game of Mastermind with you to try and decipher what your picture is by telling you my guesses and having you confirm or deny them as a bitwise checksum. Your messages are information, and and how much information affects how small I can losslessly compress them to.
@rkyeun Then you're using it in a way that is completely useless for the topic at hand, which again I remind you is the evolution of biological organisms. I set up my analogy FROM THE START to be exactly what you just said it isn't. In the bacteria, as long as the gene was a duplicate, there was no effect in how it could survive; the "bitwise checksum" as you put it would be 0. But as soon as it mutates to digest nylon, it becomes a 1 and off it goes!
If it's completely useless for the topic at hand, then you shouldn't be trying to use Shannon Theory to describe it. I don't think it is useless though.
Are you claiming the bacteria which did and which DID NOT duplicate that gene are the SAME? Because only ONE of them had the potential to go on and eat nylon, and that is RELEVANT information to know. That extra redundancy IS new information. We NEED that bit to know which bacteria culture is primed for nylonase evolution.
When the bacteria without the gene duplication made a duplicate, it gained information. There is one bacteria which is GENETIC, and one bacteria which is GENETIC GENETIC. Now the second genetic doesn't have AS MUCH information as the first one. It's less surprising and more certain, but we are pleasantly surprised to find there is a second one. We can't write their genomes in the same space anymore. We can compress it to GENETICx2, which is smaller.
That represents a key difference between the two bacteria though.
If the bacteria that was GENETIC got changed to NYLONASE, it wouldn't have any genetics left and would die.
But the GENETIC GENETIC bacteria IS DIFFERENT. Is has new information and is different from the previous bacteria by that x2 from earlier. When it mutates and becomes GENETIC NYLONASE, wow that nylonase is LOADS more information!
But it was made form one change, a frameshift. So GENETICx2> now encodes that.
@rkyeun Except that we aren't talking about information in computers here; we're talking about biological organisms, specifically their evolution. The only context of "uncertainty" that makes sense here is with regards to what the organism can do to better survive in its environment, because that is precisely what drives evolution.
You are now proposing two different "kinds" of information, as if they were not interchangeable. Both arrangement of atoms and arrangements of OPcodes are information.
The gene pool is a body of information. Mutation is noise source. The gene pool has more information when mutations occur. Natural selection is a filter. It removes some. The result is a signal. Looking only at the pool we have today, we are UNCERTAIN about what other mutations never became fixed in the pool.
But you're using uncertainty completely backwards by applying it to the signal that comes out of the filter rather than the source that went into it which you now are uncertain about. We're not uncertain at all about the signal, we HAVE it. Shannon Theory wants to compress the source into as few bits as possible, and use that number of bits as the measure of information.
@rkyeun "But you're using uncertainty completely backwards by applying it to the signal that comes out of the filter rather than the source that went into it"
Which is necessary if you're going to apply it in a biological context. Again, I wasn't the one who did this, I just ran with it to see if their claim holds up--and it doesn't.
One thing that's abundantly clear about evolution is that it has no desire whatsoever to compress the genome into as small a space as possible.
Evolution doesn't care how much information something has, so it doesn't try to compress or calculate anything. You can apply information to a biological context-- especially a genetic one-- but you have to do it right, and they don't.
You're right, I apologize for that statement. I shouldn't have anthropomorphized Shannon Theory either.
Shannon Theory states that the measure of how much information something contains is related to how small it can be losslessly compressed. If you can compress it smaller, it has less information than something which cannot be compressed so small.
@rkyeun "If you can compress it smaller, it has less information than something which cannot be compressed so small."
Right. And we can "compress" the pre-nylonase flavobacteria by that one gene--remove it entirely--and have a functionally-equivalent organism. Hence, no new information.
You now know that having a second copy of the gene does not adversely affect the organism's chances of survival. This IS NOT TRUE for ALL duplicated genes, and it was a fact about the filter of which you were previously unaware. Imagine the extreme (and yes slightly absurd) case of a bacteria that kept duplicating that gene until its DNA was too long to transcribe efficiently and it died.
@rkyeun I never SAID it was true for ALL duplication events. There are many--and we don't even have to go to the extremes you did to find them--that are deleterious. But THIS WASN'T ONE OF THEM.
I thought about it a while and I think I understand the basis of our disagreement.
I'm using Shannon Theory with the intent of showing which mutations have "new information". Are you using it to try and find what has the most "new information ABOUT what /natural selection favors/"? Be cause that would change the scope of your comments.
Okay. You are trying to learn things /about an existing filter/, which is a different proposition from measuring the information content of a source. I understand the basis of our disagreement now. Thank you.
Random noise has the most information, because it has a new value at every point with no pattern, and you can't compress it. Any time something CHANGES it's new information. The LEAST information is a steady static source, where all you need to say about it is its value and duration.
@rkyeun your post demonstrates mutation of the second copy, You said Beard Bread so the second copy had a transcription error while the first copy remained correct ;3
@rkyeun just like evolution ;3 atcg gets copied and one copy gets an error and becomes actg. atcg is not lost but actg is added since the copy changed. If actg is beneficial it is kept. If it is detrimental it is eventually weeded out. If the new version is better than the original the original could be weeded out. Now apply that to a list of chemicals billions of connections long and see how many errors, copies, fusions and complete transcriptions occur. Now add a few generations.
@rkyeun Let's say you're trying to determine what picture I'm thinking of, and all you get is confirmation when there's a match. After a bunch of random letter jumbling, you get a hit on:
BEARD
You then copy it:
BEARD BEARD
The second "beard" is NOT information because it doesn't reduce uncertainty; you already know about the beard. But you rearrange the letters further and get a hit on
BEARD BREAD
And you know my pic is a guy with a beard holding a loaf of bread. New information!
@ozredneck22 "What I had mentioned was "specified information to originate by itself in matter""
EVERYTHING in the universe generates information. How do we know so much about SN1987A, for example? Because it sent photons streaking through space, and our telescopes can collect those photons and get INFORMATION about the supernova and how it happened.
@Chuichupachichi "That statement is alluding to, or implying that naturalistic, unintelligent processes (evolution) were responsible for the programming."
Logistic, not naturalistic in this case, but otherwise correct!
"First asserting one thing & then immediately after that asserting the opposite."
@Chuichupachichi "Then regarding the Kinesin molecule, the Creationists referred merely to the fact that it walks. How that is accomplished is irrelevant"
How that is accomplished is THE ENTIRE CRUX OF THEIR ARGUMENT, LIAR!
Considering that the Creationists' focus was the walking action & this video said; "the kinesin molecule doesn't move like this at all", prior to demonstrating that the molecule walks, reveals this video to, thus far, be 2 for 2 in the illogical department...with 1 supplemental irrelevancy
Then the I.D. proponents said that DeRosier recognized that the Flagellum appears designed. Then DeRosier said that he wrote that "it looks like it was designed". Exactly, thats what the I.D. guy said
DeRosier said the Flagellum has all the earmarks of something that arose by evolution. But he didnt identify any of those earmarks. Perhaps, they may be things such as the appearance of design?
The narrator said; "the long refuted standby of Intelligent Design, known as irreducible complexity". Actually, "irreducible complexity" is the long unrefuted standby of the Mechanical Engineering world. No one has yet to refute the irreducible complexity of the mouse trap nor of the Bacterial Flagellum
Thats because Miller Tie Traps & Bacterial Poison Injectors aren't valid refutations. "Irreducible Complexity" means that a structure or system can't be reduced in its complexity and still be capable of performing the same function as when possessing the form prior to its reduction. Miller's Tie Trap can't trap mice & Yersinia Pestis can't perform the Bacterial Flagellum's function
@Chuichupachichi NO one says they could, and as I showed that is COMPLETELY irrelevant. NO ONE is saying that these systems don't exist; they have shown CONCLUSIVELY that they in no way show that something was designed and not evolved.
If that's what irreducible complexity means to you, then irreducible complexity is worthless as a means to refute evolution because parts can perform DIFFERENT functions in their different stages of evolution. Going from one functional form to another functional form that does something different isn't a problem at all.
That said, Miller's Tie Trap can still trap mice. You just have to chase the mouse now, while holding the bar back, so it's less efficient.
@rkyeun Actually, there's an easier way. See the link I posted. You even have a (very inefficient) mousetrap with even ONE part, with no human interaction required!
Behe is just WRONG and no one who isn't already biased towards him takes him at all seriously. If he had any integrity at all he would have abandoned his claim a decade ago.
A true die-hard creationist will never accept evolution, no matter how much evidence you show him. He simply cannot, because it undermines his core beliefs, and his beliefs are very much a part of his identity. To admit evolution, for a creationist, would be to literally destroy their identity. It would be a huge crisis. This is why logical reasoning does not work on them. Their core beliefs are too deeply ingrained. Why this kind of fanaticism happens with some and not others I dont know
(continued) Modern science has the means to prove or disprove evolutionary theories, as both are (or should be) exciting finds for the scientific community. If we didn't study evolution, we would've have modern medicine. To accept that everything was put here and unchanged is definitely illogical. Darwin says in his Origins book that "[refuting evolution] makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception." That's the closest he got to an attack on anyone, so I wish others would not attack him.
On another note, I feel bad for DeRosier being misunderstood. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember learning that Darwin never said that we evolved from monkeys (not to imply that this is stated anywhere in this video). The monkey is only mentioned a few times throughout the book in comparison to avian, land, and aquatic life-forms. The similarities give rise to the possibility of evolution. He was also careful to present these findings as THEORIES, having no means to prove them.
I just noticed the transcript feature available here. Thank you for including it! I found it especially useful in the "Accurate Predictions" section with the discussion of chromosomes. Your explanation was comprehensive, but it also helped to read the words the second time around. I'm fine with items on a visible level (kinesiology, cardiovascular functions), but microbiology typically washes over me, despite my best efforts. Hats off to those pioneering and studying the field!
(continued) There is also the fact that Ken Miller, a Roman Catholic, seems to be one of the leading evolutionary experts.
Michael Behe, the flagellum guy, seems to accept common decent. I saw that in an old Donexodus video, in which Donexodus talks about the fact that Behe confused theistic evolution with creationism.
Another flaw from design involves modern living conditions. We live well, but that is because of modern technology, which we use for convenience.
If you go to Africa, you will see people dying of easily curable diseases. There is that chart(that Kent Hovind shows, go figure) that speaks of a higher population after the industrial revolution.
I wonder what excuse can be used to address these. For this reason, it seems more logical to believe that people adopted to their surroundings.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Those little computer animated things near the end of the video have nothing to do with biological evolution! How can a computer animated simulation be even remotely close to biological evolution? If man didn't make the algorithm, the adaptation could not happen.
The ONLY things programmed into the simulation were mutation and natural selection. There was NOTHING WHATSOEVER that directed the formation of any creature. NO plan. NO human design. NO NOTHING. Just mutation and natural selection. Deal with it.
7:08+ always amazes me. There's something awe inspiring about the fact that mere existance inevitably leads to complexity with "the appearance of design", or even self aware clumps of matter able to argue about how and why they exist. If religous people hadn't stolen the very concept of "awe inspiring and humbling feelings of something beyond comprehension" I'd probably have a word to describe this. But they tied a magical sky daddy to this concept so I'm not sure the word "God" is appropriate.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Remember, were saved because we believe a certain thing, not because we behave a certain way. All we need to understand to qualify for the Rapture is that were sinners, that Jesus died for us, and if we ask Him to He will save us from our sins and give us eternal life. You dont need any special curriculum to teach a child that much. Just get a
kid's Bible, read the verses with them, and talk about it. John3:16, Matt. 7:7-8, John6:28-29, Rom10:9 Ephe1:13-14 & others like those should do it.
"were saved because we believe a certain thing, not because we behave a certain way."
Where is the logic or merit in that? In fact, this is your typical cult leader tactic: "Believe ME and you will be rich (by giving all your money to me). If you do NOT believe in me, you will die a horrible death!"
Come to think of it, this is the basic idea behind most chain letters, too (even though they tend to be non-profit). A lot of baloney in any case.
Continuing through the playlist. I love the various critter evolving programs. The only complaints I see Creationists sputtering out in response is claiming that somehow, the programmer's intelligence magically alters the random number generator. Most end up conceding evolution without realizing it by shifting the claim to the environment being designed.
"so you're sayin evolution is a better designer than humans have been?"
Evolutionary algorithms have been superior designers in many cases of complex situations. They rarely arrive at the optimal solution, but they often come up with very good, and unexpected, answers.
Same with human designers, let's face it. Even if you have an invention that starts off as optional, as technology progresses and modifications get made, it gets more complicated than it needs to be. That's why every so often you have to start over from the ground up.
If it's necessary to make the point, then yes. The length doesn't really have much to do with it, as long as it's not so substantial that someone could duplicate the original from it.
Actually, if you Google you can find a document made by and for documentarians to help them understand fair use and give them guidelines to follow. It's EXCELLENT.
"so you're sayin evolution is a better designer than humans have been?"
Better? Don't know about that. Depends on whether you mean "better" as in survivability or "better" as in meets a need. Mankind's imposition of selective breeding has been largely for our benefit, not the benefit of those things we breed.
We're better at making things we need; natural selection is better at making things survive.
I really like this series, but I think you'll lose any potential intelligent design proponents watching, or anyone sympathetic to their cause, by the derogatory way in which you refer to their arguments (e.g. "lame attempts").
I guess this series is likely to "preach to the choir", but just in the case someone unsympathetic is watching, wouldn't it be better to convince rather than insult them?
I want so much for intelligent design proponents to learn how they're wrong...
I have this nagging voice that urges me that if I kidnap a virulent creationist and take him around with me like an exchange student, maybe saddle some academic types I know with their own exchange student from MagicManLand, show them the ropes in Reality, have pleasant dinner conversation about science then, THEN the light would break through. They would exclaim, "Gee, wow, I never realized rational thought could make sense!" and there would be much rejoicing.
Foundational bias is a *bias*, which relies on a person's *being biased*, which assumes that the person does *not*, by definition, "know that [he is] wrong".
3dvce is awesome little app , a must get , makes an interesting screensaver too
jmm1233 1 month ago
Chuichupachichi, false accusations are NOT allowed on this channel. Your comment was removed. First warning.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
{false accusations are NOT allowed on this channel}
To what supposed "false accusation" are you referring?
{Your comment was removed}
What comment did you remove? Unless I forgot something I posted, all my comments seem to still be posted
{First warning}
Despite the fact that you falsely accused Creationists of saying that the Flagellum walks? Neither on my channel comments nor on any of my videos do I delete any comments or block any YouTubers. Why would I deny myself fun?
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi This channel has rules. Learn them or face the consequences.
Actually, you don't have to--as long as you debate HONESTLY, which creationists seem to have a real problem doing.
And it was kinesin we were talking about that the creationist say "walks." In ONE comment I made a mistake and called it "flagellum." It was a MISTAKE. GET OVER IT. What creationists say about kinesin IS A FUCKING LIE!!!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
{kinesin we were talking about that the creationist say walks}
This video shows the Kinesin not as stationary, but as mobile. But it doesn't depict it as rolling, nor sliding, nor swimming. But rather, its depicted as having two limbs that alternately move past each other to advance the Kinesin in one direction or another. That's what we humans do with our legs when we walk
This video depicts the Kinesin as executing a walking motion. If Creationists lie, then this video lies!
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi I did NOT FUCKING LIE--YOU just did! I took GREAT PAINS to point out that kinesin DOES NOT ACTUALLY MOVE IN THIS MANNER! And as I SAID IN THE VIDEO, if anyone DID program a robot to move the way kinesin ACTUALLY does, they'd be busted back to the assembly line!
You're a FUCKING LIAR. ALL creationists are liars!
shanedk 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi it only looks like a walking motion. If a human walked liked that you would think it had some sort of brain disease...
PinkProgram 1 month ago
@PinkProgram And no bones in his legs.
The sad thing is, it doesn't even LOOK like a walking motion, if you check the ACTUAL microscopic photos. That's just how it's depicted in animations.
shanedk 1 month ago
One must be a complete cretin to be convinced by this video. Creation ministries presented the robot story as a metaphorical example of what Evolutionists do regarding nature. However, within this video, Evolutionists prove to be even dumber yet. This video actually implies that robots are literally made by nature
After asserting that humans made the robot, the narrator said; "of course, modern robots are programmed (thats the making of robot) with evolutionary algorithms
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "Creation ministries presented the robot story as a metaphorical example"
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT! It was not IN ANY WAY A METAPHOR! They were LITERALLY saying that the flagellum walks like a robot when it doesn't!
You're just another creationist LIAR.
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
{They were LITERALLY saying that the flagellum walks like a robot}
No Creationist or I.D. scientist says that the Flagellum walks. Everybody knows that the Flagellum has a rotary propeller that gives propulsion to the Flagellum as it swims its way around, performing its functions that it was designed to do
You fabricated a Straw Man & that is equivalent to being the "LIAR"!
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "No Creationist or I.D. scientist says that the Flagellum walks."
OK, sorry, that was kinesin they said walks. It still doesn't. It's still a LIE.
shanedk 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi There is no such thing as evolutionists, just like there are no gravitationists. The video does not imply that nature makes robots. Do you know what an algorithm is? If you don't actually want to learn or have a real discussion why watch and comment?
IrishHermes 1 month ago
@IrishHermes
{There is no such thing as evolutionists}
What does that prove...aside from the fact that you're putting yourself in a position, from which, you're forced to necessarily resort to playing a game of semantics. If you don't like that word, you'll need to use another word to distinguish between persons such as yourself & persons such as myself. The word "Evolutionists" is used simply to distinguish between those who subscribe to theory of evolution & those who don't
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
{there are no gravitationists}
There exist no Gravitationists because there exist no Anti-Gravitationists. You Evolutionists often compare Evolutionary Theory to Gravity Theory, implying that they're equally valid. However, the reason why all persons subscribe to the validity of gravity is because its plainly obvious from the fact that when we humans take a step, we don't float off into the sky. But we're told that Evolution can't be observed because it requires millions of years
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "You Evolutionists often compare Evolutionary Theory to Gravity Theory, implying that they're equally valid."
You're correct; they're not--evolution is MORE valid and BETTER supported than gravity!
"But we're told that Evolution can't be observed because it requires millions of years"
BULLSHIT. Evolution is observed ALL THE TIME. The reason why people are anti-evolution is because of LIARS LIKE YOU.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
{evolution is MORE valid and BETTER supported than gravity!}
I guess that means that if you jumped off of the roof of a skyscraper...sooner would you not splatter on the cement concrete, than would you be proved to not be biologically composed 100% of millions of retained, accumulated reproductive defects
{Evolution is observed ALL THE TIME}
You must be referring to the many examples of "speciation" that supposedly prove macro evolution? Each is a example of mere "variation"
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "You must be referring to the many examples of "speciation" that supposedly prove macro evolution? Each is a example of mere "variation""
Assertion without evidence, which no biologist agrees with.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
{Assertion without evidence, which no biologist agrees with}
My evidence is the fact that no Biologist would agree with any assertion of that somebody has fixed the "species problem". However, thats the more intellectually involved, more complicated explanation that no evolutionist lay-person can recognize on their own because it requires a bit of critical thinking skills
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi We've SEEN speciation. LOTS of times. DEAL with it.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Actually, come to think of it...no evolutionist lay-person can even recognize the obvious & simple proof that refutes claims of macro evolution with the fact that examples such as the "speciated" California Salamanders are all still Salamanders...simply greatly varied...as are all the evolutionist's presented examples of supposed evidence of macro evolution
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "examples such as the "speciated" California Salamanders are all still Salamanders.."
Salamanders is an ORDER. You STILL haven't learned basic taxonomy, have you?
I'll go you one better: they're all still Ensatina, the genus. But they're different SPECIES of Ensatina. This is not only verified, the transitionals are even still alive and well!
All you have proven is how ignorant you are and how easily you LIE.
shanedk 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi human chromosome number 2 or how about TikTalik?
IrishHermes 1 week ago
@Chuichupachichi Our theory of gravity has MANY problems: it doesn't unify with the other 3 forces, there's no explanation for how it can work on a quantum level, it's inconsistent with observations (dark matter, dark energy), etc. Your bullshit example of jumping off a roof is just more pathetic desperation.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk I would like to make the point that the problem with a theory of quantum gravity is that there exists many problems in the context of mathematical description. I became aware of this while taking quantum field theory. However, if the Higgs boson is found, and there is already information being leaked that they may have already found the first remnants of the Higgs field. However it's faulty to make the assumption that the general relativity is faulty.
1czelaya 1 month ago
@1czelaya Not faulty, but it is incomplete. It doesn't describe over 95% of the universe!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk No macro theory is going to propose dark matter or dark energy because it's a quantum mechanical mechnism. In other words, you don't need quantum mechanics to describe celestial events. You could, but it's too mathematically complex. Gravity only becomes problematic at the quantum level because a symmetry relationship to a quantum gauge theory has not been found. Either way, to devise a quantum gravity theory is going to have introduce some new radical thinking but ONLY in the quantum
1czelaya 1 month ago
@1czelaya There is no "only in the quantum realm." The macro realm is just a convergence of quantum probabilities that has the illusion of determinism, but we've seen lots of cases where the quantum leaks in (Casimir Effect, double-slit experiment, etc.).
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk I'm well aware of those instances and there are many more instances were quantum effects take place at the macro scale (enzymatics, circuitary, electrodynamics, and the list goes on) however, in all these instances you're describing isolated systems. What I'm saying is that there is only a problem with gravity at the quantum realm because there is gravitional boson to propagate a gravitional field. The only time quantum gravity will take center stage are at the big bang or black holes.
1czelaya 1 month ago
@1czelaya Well we just don't know about Dark Matter yet; it may be another such case. And with Dark Energy, apparently there's something out there that's RESISTING gravity.
Yes, when you're talking about basketballs and satellites and pogo sticks and planets, the theory of gravity works quite fine. But it's still limited as to what it can describe, that's my point.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk "Well we just don't know about Dark Matter & Energy"... I suspect & many astrophysicist and cosmologist, in our department, their identity & description is going to be found at the quantum level. Particle physics is a zoo and there is so much richness and incredible complications dealing with symmetry that it's hard to find answers. Hopefully if quantum field theory is right about the Higgs and gravity does indeed have its own field, it will begin to shed light.
1czelaya 1 month ago
@shanedk "There is no "only in the quantum realm"... it depends, again, you don't need QM for most macro scale events. Classical mechanics, thermodynamics, & so forth are the correct mathematical language in their respective scales. I completely agree about the convergence principle that the Schrodinger equation, ultimately, converges to the equations of classical mechanics, but, again, that refortifies that QM becomes undescriptive because you lose anti-commutation(the heart of QM).
1czelaya 1 month ago
@shanedk realm.
1czelaya 1 month ago
@shanedk
{there's no explanation for how it can work on a quantum level}
When everything else also is inconsistent with quantum science, that can't be correctly counted against gravity. Relativity beautifully explains the macro & quantum explains the micro
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "When everything else also is inconsistent with quantum science"
Electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces aren't.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
{it's inconsistent with observations (dark matter, dark energy}
When was the last time anybody observed "dark matter" & "dark energy"...aside from never? In contrast, during a eclipse, Einstein observed gravity bending that upon which lights travels
BTW, that thing upon which light travels, is mentioned within the Bible - "he stretches the heavens like the fabric of a tent"
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "When was the last time anybody observed "dark matter" & "dark energy"...aside from never?"
We have PICTURES of dark matter. We know EXACTLY where it is. We just don't know WHAT it is.
"In contrast, during a eclipse, Einstein observed gravity bending that upon which lights travels"
That was Arthur Eddington, actually.
There is no "thing upon which light travels." The ether was soundly discredited over a century ago.
shanedk 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi By the way, you claimed you could observe gravity by watching something fall. You don't have to see it yourself, only the effect it has. In the EXACT SAME WAY we have observed Dark Energy.
shanedk 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi
> When was the last time anybody observed "dark matter"
/watch?v=NICUPaqtIBs 2:09
Oops. Careful what you wish for there. Here, have a map.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi
Yeah, and he shut it up with windows to keep the infinite "waters above" filling all of space from drowning the world, except for one incident involving cramming every species and eight guys into a tiny wooden crate.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "he stretches the heavens like the fabric of a tent"
Quotemining the bible I see. The verse actually says "He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." This is the claim that the earth is flat and the sky is a dome. There is no way this verse can be interpreted as light getting bent by gravity.
johnrainrules 1 month ago
@shanedk
{reason why people are anti-evolution is because of LIARS LIKE YOU}
Well, even if it means that I'll be falsely accused of being a liar, I certainly do hope that I'm one of the reasons why there exist persons that find it too ridiculously difficult to believe in "4 legged whales, Tyrannosaurus Chickens, ancestral bacterial forebears, Reptilian Crocodilians with big boobs" & that "Ida", the Marsupial version of a Rhesus monkey, is a more believable missing link than the frauds
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi You are not FALSELY accused as a liar, because I've caught you in SEVERAL lies.
All you have is incredulity and ridicule. You have NOTHING ELSE--so to lies you must resort.
shanedk 1 month ago
{The video does not imply that nature makes robots}
Certainly it does. The narrator said; "modern robots are programmed with evolutionary algorithms, instead of having a software designed directly by humans". The implication is that evolutionary algorithms execute a process devoid of intelligent guidance & that solely random chance produces a variety of components that by some process of elimination, only the functional ones are selected for retainment. Thereby, incrementally
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi That refers to the robot's software, not the hardware (although some hardware parts are also made with evolutionary algorithms).
shanedk 1 month ago
evolving mechanical structures that eventually result in functionally ordered systems. Evolutionists believe that this is a precise recreation of the theorized naturalistic processes that drive evolution. Thus, the narrator said; "instead of having a software designed by humans (intelligence). He's claiming that the evolutionary algorithms designed the robot's programming software. But evolutionists that buy into this charlatanry are too dumb to see it means algorithms grow on trees
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "But evolutionists that buy into this charlatanry are too dumb to see it means algorithms grow on trees"
What is this supposed to mean?
shanedk 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi algorithms do grow on trees ;3
PinkProgram 1 month ago
{Do you know what an algorithm is?}
Of course...its something completely foreign to Botany & Horticulture. Precisely as algorithms seem to be to evolutionists that believe this video. Your agreement with this video implies that human intelligences don't design evolutionary algorithms.
One irony is that producing computer software requires "pseudo random generators" because true randomness is mathematically non-existent
I thought Hermes was supposed to be knowledgeable???
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "Your agreement with this video implies that human intelligences don't design evolutionary algorithms."
DESPERATE bullshit. The point is that even though the algorithms themselves may be designed by humans, the METHOD THEY USE is random mutation followed by selection. The creationist claim is that these two things CANNOT be used to make working parts, and THEY ARE WRONG.
You show your desperation and dishonesty with every post.
shanedk 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "One irony is that producing computer software requires "pseudo random generators" because true randomness is mathematically non-existent"
It is in chemistry, too, so again the point is invalid. "Randomness" when used in the context of mutation means "without regard to the ultimate effect on the organism."
shanedk 1 month ago
Instead of having software designed directly by humans". That statement is alluding to, or implying that naturalistic, unintelligent processes (evolution) were responsible for the programming. First asserting one thing & then immediately after that asserting the opposite...it doesn't get any more ILLOGICAL than that...or CRETINOUS
Then regarding the Kinesin molecule, the Creationists referred merely to the fact that it walks. How that is accomplished is irrelevant
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "That statement is alluding to, or implying that naturalistic, unintelligent processes (evolution) were responsible for the programming."
.
There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of natural events which can cause specified information to originate by itself in matter. Therefore the origin of information must be non natural and non material. The concept of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy, always has been.
ozredneck22 1 month ago
@ozredneck22 I have a video SHOWING IT HAPPENING. I even calculate how much information the mutation created! You're arguing with OBSERVED FACT!
shanedk 1 month ago
@ozredneck22
Shane if you are talking about you're video 51, then no, that is not what I meant. Bacteria contain specifed information already because they are already intelligently designed, so a few minor reshuffles here and there rearrange existing specified information. What I had mentioned was "specified information to originate by itself in matter", Maybe you could do a video on that topic.
ozredneck22 1 month ago
@ozredneck22 Did you not WATCH the video? The new gene is, FROM START TO FINISH, NEW information! It shares NO amino acid sequences in common with the parent gene! It's NOT a "rearranging" of information, it is ABSOLUTELY 100% NEW INFORMATION!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Well it IS of course a rearranging of information.
That's what makes it NEW. When you move some letters in pat you get tap. And when you move some pixels in tap you get tad. All physics ever does is rearrange information. Photon here polarized this way moving this direction. Hits a proton, swap its direction with the proton's kinetic vector... Electrons in this, that, and those orbitals. Now rearranged into this combined orbital making a molecule...
ALL of it new information.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "Well it IS of course a rearranging of information."
Not according to Shannon Theory. What it was before was redundancy; the rearrangement is what MADE it new information.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
We've had this discussion about Shannon Theory before with the dice.
That there is two copies of something rather than one is itself new information. If you can compress BEARD into some number of bits, you need a greater number to express BEARD BEARD. Duplication IS new information. The new information is that there IS a second copy. It happens again when you go to BEARD BREAD, and have to express there is a word, and then a second word like it, and then how it's different.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "That there is two copies of something rather than one is itself new information."
And I'm telling you that Shannon theory clearly calls it "redundancy" since it doesn't reduce uncertainty any further. You still have the same number of bits of ENTROPY, even if you do have a larger storage space. "BEARD BEARD" is completely compressible to "BEARD" without losing information.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
It is not, and you do not. You are misapplying the redundancy in Shannon theory. It applies to signals, not to sources. Yes, you can filter the source BREAD BREAD into the signal BREAD, by throwing away the bits of extra information about how many times it repeats. You cannot un-reverse the signal BREAD into how many times BREAD was repeated to reconstruct the original information after that, because the source had more information which your signal now does not possess.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun
Un-reverse? What am I smoking.
Un-filter.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "You cannot un-reverse the signal BREAD into how many times BREAD was repeated"
You don't NEED to do so, because that doesn't tell you anything more about the picture! Remember, if it doesn't reduce uncertainty, it isn't information!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
> "BEARD BEARD" is completely compressible to "BEARD" without losing information.
Computer programs are in binary. If you read them straight, they are a very large binary number. We can convert that number to unary, and express any computer program as the proper number of vertical lines. You claim that any number of repetitions is losslessly compressible to a single repetition.
For what you just said to be true, you must be able to uncompress Microsoft Windows from |
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "For what you just said to be true, you must be able to uncompress Microsoft Windows from |"
How on EARTH does that follow from what I said?
How does the second "BEARD"--or even the knowledge that it is supposed to be there--affect IN ANY WAY your uncertainty about what the picture is?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Because your usage of uncertainty is inconsistent with the way it is used in Shannon Theory.
The second BEARD comes as less a surprise than the first beard. As additional repeats accumulate, it becomes less surprising each time. I am more certain. I have information. I can compress BEARD BEARD BEARD BEARD into 4 BEARD which is much smaller. I could not compress 23 random characters in that way. Noise has more information.
I can compress 100000000 BEARD even smaller, 10^8 BEARD.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@shanedk
At no point in Shannon Theory do I play a game of Mastermind with you to try and decipher what your picture is by telling you my guesses and having you confirm or deny them as a bitwise checksum. Your messages are information, and and how much information affects how small I can losslessly compress them to.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun Then you're using it in a way that is completely useless for the topic at hand, which again I remind you is the evolution of biological organisms. I set up my analogy FROM THE START to be exactly what you just said it isn't. In the bacteria, as long as the gene was a duplicate, there was no effect in how it could survive; the "bitwise checksum" as you put it would be 0. But as soon as it mutates to digest nylon, it becomes a 1 and off it goes!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
If it's completely useless for the topic at hand, then you shouldn't be trying to use Shannon Theory to describe it. I don't think it is useless though.
Are you claiming the bacteria which did and which DID NOT duplicate that gene are the SAME? Because only ONE of them had the potential to go on and eat nylon, and that is RELEVANT information to know. That extra redundancy IS new information. We NEED that bit to know which bacteria culture is primed for nylonase evolution.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun I wasn't the one who brought information into it; take it up with the creationists.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Oh, agreed, creationists don't use information right either. :)
rkyeun 1 month ago
@shanedk
When the bacteria without the gene duplication made a duplicate, it gained information. There is one bacteria which is GENETIC, and one bacteria which is GENETIC GENETIC. Now the second genetic doesn't have AS MUCH information as the first one. It's less surprising and more certain, but we are pleasantly surprised to find there is a second one. We can't write their genomes in the same space anymore. We can compress it to GENETICx2, which is smaller.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@shanedk
That represents a key difference between the two bacteria though.
If the bacteria that was GENETIC got changed to NYLONASE, it wouldn't have any genetics left and would die.
But the GENETIC GENETIC bacteria IS DIFFERENT. Is has new information and is different from the previous bacteria by that x2 from earlier. When it mutates and becomes GENETIC NYLONASE, wow that nylonase is LOADS more information!
But it was made form one change, a frameshift. So GENETICx2> now encodes that.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun Except that we aren't talking about information in computers here; we're talking about biological organisms, specifically their evolution. The only context of "uncertainty" that makes sense here is with regards to what the organism can do to better survive in its environment, because that is precisely what drives evolution.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
You are now proposing two different "kinds" of information, as if they were not interchangeable. Both arrangement of atoms and arrangements of OPcodes are information.
The gene pool is a body of information. Mutation is noise source. The gene pool has more information when mutations occur. Natural selection is a filter. It removes some. The result is a signal. Looking only at the pool we have today, we are UNCERTAIN about what other mutations never became fixed in the pool.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "You are now proposing two different "kinds" of information"
No, I'm only using ONE kind of information: that which reduces uncertainty.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
But you're using uncertainty completely backwards by applying it to the signal that comes out of the filter rather than the source that went into it which you now are uncertain about. We're not uncertain at all about the signal, we HAVE it. Shannon Theory wants to compress the source into as few bits as possible, and use that number of bits as the measure of information.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "But you're using uncertainty completely backwards by applying it to the signal that comes out of the filter rather than the source that went into it"
Which is necessary if you're going to apply it in a biological context. Again, I wasn't the one who did this, I just ran with it to see if their claim holds up--and it doesn't.
One thing that's abundantly clear about evolution is that it has no desire whatsoever to compress the genome into as small a space as possible.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Evolution doesn't care how much information something has, so it doesn't try to compress or calculate anything. You can apply information to a biological context-- especially a genetic one-- but you have to do it right, and they don't.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun Sorry, you don't get to use that retort, because YOU said "Shannon Theory WANTS to compress the source..." and I was responding to that.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
You're right, I apologize for that statement. I shouldn't have anthropomorphized Shannon Theory either.
Shannon Theory states that the measure of how much information something contains is related to how small it can be losslessly compressed. If you can compress it smaller, it has less information than something which cannot be compressed so small.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "If you can compress it smaller, it has less information than something which cannot be compressed so small."
Right. And we can "compress" the pre-nylonase flavobacteria by that one gene--remove it entirely--and have a functionally-equivalent organism. Hence, no new information.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
No. That does not work.
You now know that having a second copy of the gene does not adversely affect the organism's chances of survival. This IS NOT TRUE for ALL duplicated genes, and it was a fact about the filter of which you were previously unaware. Imagine the extreme (and yes slightly absurd) case of a bacteria that kept duplicating that gene until its DNA was too long to transcribe efficiently and it died.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun I never SAID it was true for ALL duplication events. There are many--and we don't even have to go to the extremes you did to find them--that are deleterious. But THIS WASN'T ONE OF THEM.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
And that is new information.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@shanedk
I thought about it a while and I think I understand the basis of our disagreement.
I'm using Shannon Theory with the intent of showing which mutations have "new information". Are you using it to try and find what has the most "new information ABOUT what /natural selection favors/"? Be cause that would change the scope of your comments.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun "Are you using it to try and find what has the most "new information ABOUT what /natural selection favors/"?"
Precisely! And that would be the new information that drives evolution.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Okay. You are trying to learn things /about an existing filter/, which is a different proposition from measuring the information content of a source. I understand the basis of our disagreement now. Thank you.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@shanedk
Random noise has the most information, because it has a new value at every point with no pattern, and you can't compress it. Any time something CHANGES it's new information. The LEAST information is a steady static source, where all you need to say about it is its value and duration.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun your post demonstrates mutation of the second copy, You said Beard Bread so the second copy had a transcription error while the first copy remained correct ;3
PinkProgram 1 month ago
@PinkProgram
My design is not very intelligent.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun just like evolution ;3 atcg gets copied and one copy gets an error and becomes actg. atcg is not lost but actg is added since the copy changed. If actg is beneficial it is kept. If it is detrimental it is eventually weeded out. If the new version is better than the original the original could be weeded out. Now apply that to a list of chemicals billions of connections long and see how many errors, copies, fusions and complete transcriptions occur. Now add a few generations.
PinkProgram 1 month ago
@rkyeun Let's say you're trying to determine what picture I'm thinking of, and all you get is confirmation when there's a match. After a bunch of random letter jumbling, you get a hit on:
BEARD
You then copy it:
BEARD BEARD
The second "beard" is NOT information because it doesn't reduce uncertainty; you already know about the beard. But you rearrange the letters further and get a hit on
BEARD BREAD
And you know my pic is a guy with a beard holding a loaf of bread. New information!
shanedk 1 month ago
@ozredneck22 "What I had mentioned was "specified information to originate by itself in matter""
EVERYTHING in the universe generates information. How do we know so much about SN1987A, for example? Because it sent photons streaking through space, and our telescopes can collect those photons and get INFORMATION about the supernova and how it happened.
shanedk 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "That statement is alluding to, or implying that naturalistic, unintelligent processes (evolution) were responsible for the programming."
Logistic, not naturalistic in this case, but otherwise correct!
"First asserting one thing & then immediately after that asserting the opposite."
Didn't do it, LIAR.
shanedk 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "Then regarding the Kinesin molecule, the Creationists referred merely to the fact that it walks. How that is accomplished is irrelevant"
How that is accomplished is THE ENTIRE CRUX OF THEIR ARGUMENT, LIAR!
shanedk 1 month ago
Considering that the Creationists' focus was the walking action & this video said; "the kinesin molecule doesn't move like this at all", prior to demonstrating that the molecule walks, reveals this video to, thus far, be 2 for 2 in the illogical department...with 1 supplemental irrelevancy
Then the I.D. proponents said that DeRosier recognized that the Flagellum appears designed. Then DeRosier said that he wrote that "it looks like it was designed". Exactly, thats what the I.D. guy said
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "prior to demonstrating that the molecule walks"
IT DOES NOT WALK! It doesn't do anything REMOTELY RESEMBLING WALKING! GET THE FUCK OVER IT!!!
And there's a difference between something APPEARING designed and actually BEING designed.
shanedk 1 month ago
DeRosier said the Flagellum has all the earmarks of something that arose by evolution. But he didnt identify any of those earmarks. Perhaps, they may be things such as the appearance of design?
The narrator said; "the long refuted standby of Intelligent Design, known as irreducible complexity". Actually, "irreducible complexity" is the long unrefuted standby of the Mechanical Engineering world. No one has yet to refute the irreducible complexity of the mouse trap nor of the Bacterial Flagellum
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi "No one has yet to refute the irreducible complexity of the mouse trap nor of the Bacterial Flagellum"
Bullshit: cdk007's Evolution of the Flagellum: /watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
Ken Miller debunking the mousetrap: millerandlevineDOTcom/km/evol/DI/Mousetrap.html
shanedk 1 month ago
Thats because Miller Tie Traps & Bacterial Poison Injectors aren't valid refutations. "Irreducible Complexity" means that a structure or system can't be reduced in its complexity and still be capable of performing the same function as when possessing the form prior to its reduction. Miller's Tie Trap can't trap mice & Yersinia Pestis can't perform the Bacterial Flagellum's function
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi NO one says they could, and as I showed that is COMPLETELY irrelevant. NO ONE is saying that these systems don't exist; they have shown CONCLUSIVELY that they in no way show that something was designed and not evolved.
shanedk 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi
If that's what irreducible complexity means to you, then irreducible complexity is worthless as a means to refute evolution because parts can perform DIFFERENT functions in their different stages of evolution. Going from one functional form to another functional form that does something different isn't a problem at all.
That said, Miller's Tie Trap can still trap mice. You just have to chase the mouse now, while holding the bar back, so it's less efficient.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@rkyeun Actually, there's an easier way. See the link I posted. You even have a (very inefficient) mousetrap with even ONE part, with no human interaction required!
Behe is just WRONG and no one who isn't already biased towards him takes him at all seriously. If he had any integrity at all he would have abandoned his claim a decade ago.
shanedk 1 month ago
A true die-hard creationist will never accept evolution, no matter how much evidence you show him. He simply cannot, because it undermines his core beliefs, and his beliefs are very much a part of his identity. To admit evolution, for a creationist, would be to literally destroy their identity. It would be a huge crisis. This is why logical reasoning does not work on them. Their core beliefs are too deeply ingrained. Why this kind of fanaticism happens with some and not others I dont know
8698gil 3 months ago
I would love a video game that has enemies (and other entities) formed with the evolutionary algorithms!
Moshugaani 3 months ago
(continued) Modern science has the means to prove or disprove evolutionary theories, as both are (or should be) exciting finds for the scientific community. If we didn't study evolution, we would've have modern medicine. To accept that everything was put here and unchanged is definitely illogical. Darwin says in his Origins book that "[refuting evolution] makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception." That's the closest he got to an attack on anyone, so I wish others would not attack him.
Rozax 1 year ago
On another note, I feel bad for DeRosier being misunderstood. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember learning that Darwin never said that we evolved from monkeys (not to imply that this is stated anywhere in this video). The monkey is only mentioned a few times throughout the book in comparison to avian, land, and aquatic life-forms. The similarities give rise to the possibility of evolution. He was also careful to present these findings as THEORIES, having no means to prove them.
Rozax 1 year ago
I just noticed the transcript feature available here. Thank you for including it! I found it especially useful in the "Accurate Predictions" section with the discussion of chromosomes. Your explanation was comprehensive, but it also helped to read the words the second time around. I'm fine with items on a visible level (kinesiology, cardiovascular functions), but microbiology typically washes over me, despite my best efforts. Hats off to those pioneering and studying the field!
Rozax 1 year ago
Ah good old logic, the bane of all creationists.
zWolf1215 1 year ago
Michael Behe just got showed up.
tifforo1 1 year ago
This is amazing!
winner0loser 1 year ago
"To Creationists
Contains: Logic for Dummies
100 Copies"
LOL
TheLowArtGloominati 1 year ago
i can't believe that i live on the same planet as the lame creationists. what's worse? my parents are creationists :( .
kargaroc386 1 year ago
@kargaroc386 So give 'em a copy of my book for Father's Day. :^)
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk What's your book called?
TomSFox 1 year ago
@shanedk Never mind, I found it.
TomSFox 1 year ago
@kargaroc386 Mine are too
p8riot262 1 year ago
(continued) There is also the fact that Ken Miller, a Roman Catholic, seems to be one of the leading evolutionary experts.
Michael Behe, the flagellum guy, seems to accept common decent. I saw that in an old Donexodus video, in which Donexodus talks about the fact that Behe confused theistic evolution with creationism.
DahStranger 2 years ago
Comment removed
DahStranger 2 years ago
Just a heads-up: your Blu-Ray link is dead.
NineInchSamusAran 2 years ago
I've got the Second Edition ready and will let everyone know when it's available.
shanedk 2 years ago
Another flaw from design involves modern living conditions. We live well, but that is because of modern technology, which we use for convenience.
If you go to Africa, you will see people dying of easily curable diseases. There is that chart(that Kent Hovind shows, go figure) that speaks of a higher population after the industrial revolution.
I wonder what excuse can be used to address these. For this reason, it seems more logical to believe that people adopted to their surroundings.
DahStranger 2 years ago
Shane, what's the name of that awesome song in the beginning of the video.
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
"How It Begins" by Kevin MacLeod.
shanedk 2 years ago
Thank you very much!!!
I honestly wasn't expecting you to respond ^O^
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
Curious, have looked at how the "ejector" which became the bacteria motor evolved itself?
KitsuneVoss 2 years ago
I assume you mean the flagellum. Yes, there have been MANY analyses showing how it evolved.
shanedk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Those little computer animated things near the end of the video have nothing to do with biological evolution! How can a computer animated simulation be even remotely close to biological evolution? If man didn't make the algorithm, the adaptation could not happen.
angelchic86 2 years ago
The ONLY things programmed into the simulation were mutation and natural selection. There was NOTHING WHATSOEVER that directed the formation of any creature. NO plan. NO human design. NO NOTHING. Just mutation and natural selection. Deal with it.
shanedk 2 years ago
Those robots are so cool!
If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that they were just short guys in costumes!
It's amazing what we are capable of, and I don't think we would have got this far if everyone kept on going "God dun it!"
Bowmaj21 2 years ago 3
I'm going to pray that I understand evolution.
rogermoore27 2 years ago 8
understanding evoloution is easy
I can describe evoloution i 5 easy steps
pwhittingham 2 years ago
7:08+ always amazes me. There's something awe inspiring about the fact that mere existance inevitably leads to complexity with "the appearance of design", or even self aware clumps of matter able to argue about how and why they exist. If religous people hadn't stolen the very concept of "awe inspiring and humbling feelings of something beyond comprehension" I'd probably have a word to describe this. But they tied a magical sky daddy to this concept so I'm not sure the word "God" is appropriate.
Flyborg 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Remember, were saved because we believe a certain thing, not because we behave a certain way. All we need to understand to qualify for the Rapture is that were sinners, that Jesus died for us, and if we ask Him to He will save us from our sins and give us eternal life. You dont need any special curriculum to teach a child that much. Just get a
kid's Bible, read the verses with them, and talk about it. John3:16, Matt. 7:7-8, John6:28-29, Rom10:9 Ephe1:13-14 & others like those should do it.
spiritslain 3 years ago
"were saved because we believe a certain thing, not because we behave a certain way."
Where is the logic or merit in that? In fact, this is your typical cult leader tactic: "Believe ME and you will be rich (by giving all your money to me). If you do NOT believe in me, you will die a horrible death!"
Come to think of it, this is the basic idea behind most chain letters, too (even though they tend to be non-profit). A lot of baloney in any case.
Gilmaris 2 years ago 15
@Gilmaris
Copy and paste that anti-chain-letter message as a response to 10 chain letter postings or you will be subject to 10 chain letter postings.
rkyeun 1 year ago
Whats the music in the background? Sounds like something from an old console game. :D
Neltharions 3 years ago 2
Comment removed
Neltharions 3 years ago
"How It Begins" by Kevin MacLeod. And yes, it does; that's why I chose it.
shanedk 3 years ago
Cheers. It's not usually my kind of music, but it's quite uplifting and relaxing to listen too.
Neltharions 3 years ago
I figured it fit in well with the logic-robot-computer theme of the video.
shanedk 3 years ago
is this a bookk or a blog on utube
ah05075 2 years ago
Hmm... AI designers that design by evolution... creepy but cool. Artificially Intelligent Design?
jbz3 3 years ago
Continuing through the playlist. I love the various critter evolving programs. The only complaints I see Creationists sputtering out in response is claiming that somehow, the programmer's intelligence magically alters the random number generator. Most end up conceding evolution without realizing it by shifting the claim to the environment being designed.
TheBronzeDog 3 years ago
Comment removed
HolySpringRolls 3 years ago
"so you're sayin evolution is a better designer than humans have been?"
Evolutionary algorithms have been superior designers in many cases of complex situations. They rarely arrive at the optimal solution, but they often come up with very good, and unexpected, answers.
Elitistb616 3 years ago
"They rarely arrive at the optimal solution"
Same with human designers, let's face it. Even if you have an invention that starts off as optional, as technology progresses and modifications get made, it gets more complicated than it needs to be. That's why every so often you have to start over from the ground up.
shanedk 3 years ago
Like the video, but ...
I'm no lawyer, but I personally don't think that "fair use" would allow for such a long, continuous use of someone else's copyrighted video.
DNAunion 3 years ago
If it's necessary to make the point, then yes. The length doesn't really have much to do with it, as long as it's not so substantial that someone could duplicate the original from it.
shanedk 3 years ago
look up the fair use definition...this is fine
lostrules4815162342 3 years ago
Actually, if you Google you can find a document made by and for documentarians to help them understand fair use and give them guidelines to follow. It's EXCELLENT.
shanedk 3 years ago
so you're sayin evolution is a better designer than humans have been?
funwjoshnjenn 3 years ago
In many, many cases, yes.
shanedk 3 years ago
"so you're sayin evolution is a better designer than humans have been?"
Better? Don't know about that. Depends on whether you mean "better" as in survivability or "better" as in meets a need. Mankind's imposition of selective breeding has been largely for our benefit, not the benefit of those things we breed.
We're better at making things we need; natural selection is better at making things survive.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Well I would say nature has more resources, power and complexity and years to create a more complex product than humans so yea.
LotusGreenX 3 years ago
I really like this series, but I think you'll lose any potential intelligent design proponents watching, or anyone sympathetic to their cause, by the derogatory way in which you refer to their arguments (e.g. "lame attempts").
I guess this series is likely to "preach to the choir", but just in the case someone unsympathetic is watching, wouldn't it be better to convince rather than insult them?
I want so much for intelligent design proponents to learn how they're wrong...
naannyms 3 years ago
They won't. They're too far gone. These videos are for the fence-sitters.
shanedk 3 years ago
I have this nagging voice that urges me that if I kidnap a virulent creationist and take him around with me like an exchange student, maybe saddle some academic types I know with their own exchange student from MagicManLand, show them the ropes in Reality, have pleasant dinner conversation about science then, THEN the light would break through. They would exclaim, "Gee, wow, I never realized rational thought could make sense!" and there would be much rejoicing.
naannyms 3 years ago 3
I think you'd also need a psychologist skilled in deprogramming.
shanedk 3 years ago
''I want so much for intelligent design proponents to learn how they're wrong... ''
They already know that they are wrong.
There position is derived from foundational bias.
qualiasoup has an excellent video on this:
watch?v=-h9XntsSEro&feature=channel_page
TheProf1988 3 years ago
Foundational bias is a *bias*, which relies on a person's *being biased*, which assumes that the person does *not*, by definition, "know that [he is] wrong".
naannyms 3 years ago
no idea what that means. all I know is that bias is bad for science (apart from the naturalistic bias- which is of course what science is)
TheProf1988 3 years ago