Natural Selection: A Machine for Making Almost Impossible Things

[Lachdenan]

Interesting lecture title, seeing as how creationism and evolution do not actually deal with the same question. Creationism deals with the origin of the physical universe via an entity not bound by said physical universe--reasonable, yet unprovable. Evolution deals with extant things whose genetic code is supposed to change. It is reasonable, yet unprovable. This man is assuming that living things evolve in order to prove that living things evolve.

[gregrutz]

@Lachdenan Evolution has been accepted as 'proven'. DNA shows it happens.

[Lachdenan]

@gregrutz Adaptation does not equal evolution. In any case, it would intrigue me, as Darwin himself dismissed the notion as basically a fireside rant (which does not inherently disprove the idea). In any case, I hypothesize that it will be much like the difference between Quantum Theory and Relativity. One applies to the world of tiny things and deals with probabilities and permutations, the other applies to the world of large things, and deals with fixed quantities.

[Lachdenan]

@gregrutz I am thinking that if one scoffs at any notion of adaption whatsoever, they risk becoming like the Catholics and locking Galileo in his house. Also, if one scoffs at the notion of God, they risk becoming like the Nazis and tearing babies apart with hooks ("these people are a disease" line). The thing that bothers me is not the subscription to Adaptation, but rather the institutional, social mockery of the idea of Creation, for one can steer off a path to the left or right.

[gregrutz]

@Lachdenan Religious people try to come up with some believeable creation story, so they make up more stories to support their stories. Like Hydorplate theory, Canopy theory, Young Earth and a global flood did all the geology and the fossil record too. And the Grand Canyon's rock layers were all from a flood and it made the canyon too. All this is silly to a college educated science person, anyone who has studied geology, biology, chemistry or evan astronomy. So it is mocked.

[Lachdenan]

@gregrutz I see. So, perhaps evolution should be mocked in that same vein since it's original proponents had pictures of negros next to the apes in the hierarchy of evolution, since, you know, they must be animals. All this is silly to a college educated science person, or evan your average doorknob [sic].

Surely you realize that any theory will have nonsensical people trying to imitate it, and that such imitation is irrelevant to the veracity of said idea? I can give a wrong theory for 2+2=4.

[gregrutz]

@Lachdenan ''in the hierarchy of evolution'' NO, there is no hierachy in evolution. We did not evolve from chimps, gorillas or negros, not even Neanderthals.

We are all animals, you are classified as a Great Ape.

[gregrutz]

@Lachdenan '' seeing as how creationism and evolution do not actually deal with the same question''

They both deal with where man came from. One idea is ''poof'' we just came from nothing and the other shows how we evolved over time. One idea is a story, the other is a theory the explains the fossil record and why we are Apes.

[Lachdenan]

@gregrutz Actually, evolution has never been corroborated in the fossil record. No species has been shown to change gradually into another. It makes no sense, as the DNA is a complete system. I wouldn't evolve half an arm, nor would I evolve holes in my skull for eyeballs. All that Creation says is that the universe, a closed system, originates from a Creator outside of said system. And good luck evolving the first reproduction! We can't even explain life in one cell.

[gregrutz]

@Lachdenan The fossils are layered like this:

In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils,

above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils,

above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils

and dinosaur fossils.

No human or bunny fossils are found in any of these layers.

No dating method used

Can you explain?

[Lachdenan]

@gregrutz It would seem that things were created in an order corresponding exactly to what Genesis says.

[gregrutz]

@Lachdenan I don't remember dinosaurs ruling the earth for 160,000,000 years in Genesis.

[Lachdenan]

@gregrutz Why would they? The Creation story doesn't go into greater detail than plants, animals, etc. They don't name a species that would affect no one and not even be known for thousands of years. If you will notice, there is an abundance of natural processes not mentioned in Genesis, as it is the "Origin" of mankind. They don't mention "crucifix" in Old Testament prophecy either (before its invention), which is a similar point of contention I have with the Jehovah's Witnesses.

[gregrutz]

@Lachdenan And when did God make Neanderthals? Those other kind of humans not related to us.

[Lachdenan]

@gregrutz I honestly don't know. The fact remains that this man in the video asserts evolution to prove evolution, which is a ridiculous fallacy an educated man should be above. I don't see what that has to do with a dissection of the Bible (you know, "if the Bible doesn't talk about Neanderthals, then it must not be true"). The truth is that his fallacy has nothing to do with the Bible or anything else but his own fallacy. If you have already chosen to dislike the Bible, I can't change that.

[gregrutz]

@Lachdenan People see the fossils, in order, and say ''That's evolution, it's a theory''. When in reality they are seeing the processs of evolution, a fact. The evidence clearly shows evolution, the theory shows how it happens.

[Teghead]

@Lachdenan

The compelling evidence for evolution is elsewhere, Prof Jones is not here interested in proving evolution, he is just demonstrating an interesting point in how variation and selection did a better job than design at producing these nozzles, which is related to the interesting ways that natural selection produces unexpected things.

Here in the UK, generally christians reject creationism because it is clearly an untestable idea, and the delusion is too much for learned christians.

[gregrutz]

@Lachdenan Were bats made on the same day as birds or were the made with mammals? Were whales made with fish or with mammal land animals?

[iwantagoodnameplease]

Chuichupachichi makes a fantastic raving luncatic.

[Chuichupachichi]

Well that's very easily asserted. However, why don't you make an attempt at the much more difficult task of actually presenting a sensible, plausible argument that addresses what I've presented

[Chuichupachichi]

I see..... well your silence simply demonstrates that yours is what's often exhibited by your Simianite kind. Simply that to you, anyone who offers a view different from your own, is a host to any one of a number of disorders, defects, intolerable indoctrinations etc

It's interesting to note that Femme-Nazis, Homosexuophiles, racist racial minorities & the remainder of the leftist losers also make continual practice of such delusional tactics

Funny, how "humanism" leads to apehood.

Devolution?

[ArgusEyes]

Lunatics are incapable of recognising themselves as such.

"why don't you make an attempt at the much more difficult task of actually presenting a sensible, plausible argument that addresses what I've presented"

Your "arguments" are so disordered, so far reaching and hyperbolous and irrational and downright delusional, that there is a point at which one decides that it would take a tome to deal with them.

At such a point, "lunatic" becomes an effective argument against such a person.

[Chuichupachichi]

(Lunatics are incapable of recognising themselves as such)

Lunacy causes even more than that. Aside from not recognizing your lunacy, its also the reason why you don't recognize how much you're like a Femme-Nazi

Isn't this something, Argus' mind works like a Femme-Nazis. Simply because you're set in your predetermined views which are arrived at because they're what you wish for reality to be, is why you automatically reject anything that refutes those views no matter how reasonable & factual

[Chuichupachichi]

the opposing argument may be. What you call "disordered", "far reaching", hyperbolous", "irrational" & even "delusional". Is in fact, simply that I pointed out how this video presents unnatural, intelligence produced nozzles & engineering as proof of natural, non intelligence "natural selection". My saying that, is completely reasonable. In fact, since that is precisely the appropriate, refuting argument to make & you claiming its lunacy, delusional etc. is precisely why Evo is "UNFALSIFIABLE"

[Hooya2]

I know it's a trivial point, but this is actually artificial selection. Yes, it's been demonstrated that natural selection works just as well, but still thought I would point that out.

[pleutman]

"who's side is god on;the predator or the prey?" in the flux of competing design where one thing designs or influences the radiating future design of the other.(the micro within the greater collective macro) life looks like an improvisation to make something out of the possibilities of the mathematics of nothing.(nomological neccessity). i can only consider myself a deliberate "disgnostic";because the onus is on god to show himself or the universe to impart its mysteries or bugger off..

[pleutman]

Consequently i consider "disgnosticsm";the religion of "i don't give a fuck if there is a god or no god"..to be the easiest wash hands..because myself being creat in a creation catena;i am not responsible for my creation before my temporal mortal memory...if it waswn't for being tought about a god,i wouldn't think about god or no god...i would just get on with my compartmentalised endevours in relation to the other forces that cannot help doing the same as me.

[LimpLoser]

I like Steve Jones. much better than Dawkins.

[ArgusEyes]

I actually can't stand Dawkins.

And I've had a number of people tell me that he must be my messiah because all of us atheists are alike don't you know..

[pleutman]

heuristic method from success and failures of arbitrary ideas....adaption seems to be producing obese humans that eat too much macdonalds at the moment...is that natural selection?..or is it the product of the opposite"the natural rejection process XD"where survival within a corrupt welfare state means inferiority breeds more successfully than superiority

[AziMeX]

Creationism has and should have a stigma attached to it, just as one who says they have a personal relationship with Napoleon. In the age of science, it is unacceptable that people like this should be given a voice, let alone taken seriously to debate against. I have seen no videos debunking the claims that Elvis is alive.....Creationism falls in the same brain dead superstitious fanatical category. They are harmless looney tunes at best, and dangerous fanatics at worst.

[ThatRedEchidna]

I never understood why natural selection is considered by a portion of creationists to be destructive to creationism. It works just as well in their theory, does it not?

[sausage4mash]

no ? they recon the earth is 6000yrs old, from bacteria to man has taken about 1.5 billion yrs

creationism is Christianity pretending to be  science, as 3rd wave feminism is a political movement pretending to be a social science .

[Chuichupachichi]

"sauce edge form ash",

Since "creationism is Christianity pretending to be science". Then you must certainly be the scientifically astutely literate individual that can tell us more about those 1.5 billion yr old bacteria

Perhaps, you're a specialist in bacterial "viruses" in particular? We know how they madly mutate almost continuously. The implausibility of they descending from complex organisms means they've directly descended from the first single cells. Tell us, why are they still viruses?

[sausage4mash]

"Tell us, why are they still viruses? "

A question that clearly demonstrates you do not even know what evolution is , why should I teach you ?! , lol bacterial "viruses" fucking Idiot , a virus has nothing to do with a bacteria ,and you are telling us about Evolution .

a virus is unable to reproduce, it gets other organisms ,cells or Bacteria to do the job ,

[sausage4mash]

this is why computer viruses are named thus, they insert their code in other programs .

So why did your christain God create the virus ?

[Chuichupachichi]

("Why did Christian God create virus"?)

Beats the hell out of me?

All I know is how science shows evolutionary theory to be pathetically preposterous

I don't use religion to make such determinations!

[sausage4mash]

"I don't use religion to make such determinations! "

You are spouting creationist propaganda ?

[Chuichupachichi]

(You are spouting creationist propaganda ?)

Ha Ha Ha Ha! By making that statement you just demonstrated the fact that evolutionists do indeed predetermine the ends. It's well known by all that when you say something like "creationist propaganda", you're implying that I was speaking religion. However, it only requires someone who knows how to read to go back through my posts & see that I spoke no religion whatsoever. Except for when a poster inquired about the US Constitution but the Const. is

[Chuichupachichi]

neither science nor Evo. The fact is that even when nothing but pure science is presented (as from ID scientists) & it refutes Evo, you Evoists simply refuse to recognize any such conclusions. Thus, you fool only yourselves by ridiculously & unreasonably claiming that what was presented was only religion. You make your determination by looking only at the final outcome & if its contrary to your view, then its automatically religion

But if you like it, no matter how 4 legged whale stupid it is

[Chuichupachichi]

then its automatically "good science". This is precisely why you guys demonstrate on these YT pages how enormously stupid you truly are. Its because you merely look at what the conclusion is & determine its status depending on whether or not it aligns with your predetermination. Its proved by whats noted in this posting. Your mind has never received any exercise. If sold, your brain would be priced higher than any other in the brain store. Due to the fact that it's never been used

[thirdclass2006]

Exactly what part of science says that evolution is "pathetically preposterous"?

As of yet, it's one of the best supported theories.

And by theory, I mean that in the scientific sense; an idea that has been tested and is supported by evidence.

[Chuichupachichi]

now now meat masher mutant, don't forget what your Senior Simianites have recorded into your cavernous cranial cavity. The big evoists in the tree tops have said that since viruses resist antibodies by mutating, that proves macro evolution.

Seems I must teach u your own evo theory stupidity. You Primateological Pinheads are the ones that said evolution requires "reproductive" organisms. "Viruses"?

"you do not even know what evolution is"?

"why should I teach you"?

"fucking Idiot"?

Ha Ha Ha Ha

[Chuichupachichi]

Remember now, no "pretending" allowed. You can't wear a Christian Isaac Newton mask. Also, since yours is to be a demonstration of what "prodigious scientific proficiency" looks like, is why it can't sound like Dawkin's "STUMPED" & finally delivered, irrelevantly retarded answer. Ridiculously well rounded "reasoning" & luminous "logic" are required of you. As one would expect from a scientifically spectacular "atheist" with ancestral Amoebian forebearers

[georg1984]

Seen or read this before somewhere. I agree, it is really interesting.

[LatumWay]

Huh that was really interesting.

[thecreepyguy]

interesting

[thomaserossi]

Needless to say, I'm not impressed with the explanations presented in this video.

[ArgusEyes]

If you want more talk about evolutionary theory then watch the full lecture which I have linked in the description bar.

[thomaserossi]

My problem with any explanation of evolution through technology is that technology has a particular goal while evolution does not. Evolution has no goal. The goal of life is to create and maintain life but evolution is merely a mechanism to support these goals through variety. The easiest way to debunk any misleading commentary on evolution is if they use the word Perfect. The idea of perfection is immutable, diametrically opposed to evolution which is a state of flux or mutation.

[5b]

The point of evolution is to keep us evolving and changing as the conditions of life change, it is needed or else the human species, mammals, and all living things would have been extinct the next generation after they were made.

Our immune system for one is constantly evolving as we pass down new immunities from mother to child every generation.

Evolution is the basis on which goals are met.

[Chuichupachichi]

{all living things would have been extinct the next generation after they were made}

Of course, and since we're talking about surviving one generation after being made, is why we know that all living things actually did survive because all the females were just dying for the 3 legged, 2 faced, quad-testicled, Siamese conjoined progenitors of the future generations

[pleutman]

interesting;i saw a program once about the first prototype creatures which had five eyes in a row etc..(long extinct).but metaphysically the designers despair is when to draw the line and go into production.(to break out of the design process of supercession)plus like i said in my obese people becoming more common and and a "survival of the shittest" in the "natural rejection process"...how many times has something that has signs of intellegent design been extinguished by retarded design?

[5b]

You're saying survival is based on looks and not efficiency? You're a sad little man.

[pleutman]

its not always looks but sometimes money or drugs is a contributive bastardising motive/agent/factor that produces recipient offspring...eg prostitution etc etc..take a look at the butt ugly world and see what motives made people breed..( subprime welfare types);efficiency was the last thing on their minds..;it was probably having a kid means freehousing and eating macdonalds...successful parasites by design.and what about fettishes and other strange marriages?

[5b]

Maybe it's just me then? I prefer brains.

Fetishes can be efficient. You make them sound like a bad thing. Hell, even doing it in "missionary" is considered a fetish.

Though I agree it's a butt ugly world, but don't you see all these butt ugly people single?

Wait..I just proved your point...damn. I give. lol

[thomaserossi]

5b says - "You're saying survival is based on looks and not efficiency? You're a sad little man."

Ad hominem attacks are petty. You have no case. You don't know anything. You don't even understand the simplest ideas about biology. If looks don't matter than explain birds' plumage.

You can't. You'd have to redact all of your nonsense.

[thomaserossi]

5b says "The point of evolution is to keep us evolving and changing as the conditions of life change"

Wrong. Evolution has no point other than diversity. You're speaking as a Lamarkian and you don't even know it.  If evolution had a point it could plan. It doesn't plan. Evolutionary blooming explicitly contradicts your wild, ignorant guesses into the purpose of evolution.

[thomaserossi]

I'd hate to point this out but we need to look no further than Thomas Aquinas to get a Christian support of Natural Selection. The Judeo-Christian (not Muslim) belief in God's immutable principles is the foundation of all science. In short, God created the Universe with immutable principles perfect therefore God cannot break them. This means humans may observe the truth of the universe and although it may be mysterious it cannot be changed. This was the argument AGAINST fundamentalism.

[TruthBeyond]

It's against Christianity all together (not just fundamentalists) as no miracles can work with out changing the laws of nature (resurrection, etc).

[AziMeX]

unfortunately Christianity, just like Santa and the Leprechaun both need naive peopler to keep the myth alive. Whereas small children have an excuse, people such as this thomaerossi moron who commented below, use a slightly more sophisticated language to essentially justify garbage. Just as someone is able to use slick language to support the resurrection of Elvis. The problem with responding to such intellectually insulting garbage, is it makes trhem think they have a point,

[thomaserossi]

Hatemonging, mockery, strawmen and ad hominem is your idea of enlightenment. You really don't know anything so you resort to these strategies to avoid using reason, logic, and evidence.

[thomaserossi]

@ TruthBeyond - unfortunately, you're incapable of reading and comprehending what I said. Thomas Aquinas is a much better source than your meely-mouthed objections. I'd take his explanation over yours without hesitation.

[Chuichupachichi]

It's a very clever trick to take something like technology which does indeed gradually incrementally evolve (thanks to the required, intelligent design) and oratorically entwine it with the theory of biological evolution.

One must keep a close, diligent eye on these wannabe, 2 handed apes that curiously possess the physiological ability to speak. They'll say anything to continue their gravy train, research funding that's provided by Loerferian totalitarians whom hate Christian US Constitution

[TruthBeyond]

The US Constitution is Christian?

[Chuichupachichi]

Yeah surprise! I know that these days the elitist intellectuals, being materialist, humanist, anti-Christian Marxists that control the universities teach that the US founders had ideologies that line up with the universities elitists predeterminist thinking. But guess what? Thats simply what they predetermined. You should ask them sometime about how all of the US ivy league schools & England's Oxford & Cambridge were founded as theological learning institutions that provided a secondary secular

[Chuichupachichi]

education. That was during the years in which both countries actually grew upwards, becoming strong & prosperous. The current Primatological predeterminers have been in control mostly since the 60's. The time from which the countries have been in a nosedive ever since. The Christian made US Constitution shouldn't surprise you considering it's preamble, AKA The Declaration of Independence says "all men were CREATED equal, and were endowed by their CREATOR". Then, amendment #1 says "Congress shall

[Chuichupachichi]

make no law respecting(regarding) the establishment of religion (because if they did, they'd do what was done in England, forcing Christians to become pilgrims. It also means that when the people are establishing a religion, Congress has no say in the matter and the gov. can't force a religion because that violates Gods gift of freewill) or prohibiting the practice thereof". James Madison what today is referred to as a "hardcore Christian" is the "father of the Constitution"

Sorry, thats fact!

[5b]

"thanks to the required, intelligent design"

It wasn't intelligent design, it was random selection. As they picked the RANDOM one that worked best out of the group of RANDOM ones they had made. There was no basis on intelligent design in this video.

[Chuichupachichi]

Those words of mine you quoted, were written within the context in which I was speaking of technology in general. I know you'd like to think that all technology has always been developed by unintelligently, randomly selecting the next version or generation of all things technological. But sorry, intelligent persons didn't feel like remaining in the stone age

[Chuichupachichi]

Of course they picked the random ones that worked best out of the group of random ones they had made??? That's precisely why engineers earn minimum wage. Intelligence is not required. But merely someone with a McDonald's level aptitude that can be taught how to put the technology into the "randomly selecting unintelligent" contraption and "Whoalla". As soon as NASA gets their hands on one of those contraptions they'll be sending technologically superior "Stupid Shuttles" across time

[ArgusEyes]

Intelligence is not required for engineers?! That is just wrong, I have known many engineering students from university and they are very intelligent and it is required for that course which is far from a pushover.

There is no contraption that people "plug into". The engineer (or programmer) needs to make it themselves, which is difficult and requires intelligence to do.

[Chuichupachichi]

Intelligence is not only required to pass their engineering courses, but also to perform in their careers. Its why I was being sarcastic. Although now you're saying their work requires intelligence, my sarcasm was a reply to your previous comment -

{The method via natural selection arrived at a solution that the designers could not achieve, and it did it by a completely unintelligent process of random change with selection. The final product was unique and unobtainable by intelligent designers}

[Chuichupachichi]

When one considers your claims of that a "unintelligent process" achieved what was "unobtainable by intelligent designers", it would seem your claim is begging for sarcasm that states exactly what your claim implies. That since the engineers' intelligence is not only not required, but also failed when applied, is why the employment of McDonald's patty flippers would be sufficient for the task. They needing to be only as capable as the engineers, being not at all due to the unintelligent process

[ArgusEyes]

"McDonald's patty flipper" would not suffice for this kind of work. I have done this kind of work and you haven't you are simply wrong, I told you before that it requires intelligence to create these kinds of natural selections scenarios but you either didn't read it are ignoring it. This all seems to be the basis for some kind of emotional and luddite-ish argument that this will put engineers out of a job or some such thing. That has not impact on its efficacy as a method or evolution.

[Chuichupachichi]

I would say that since we've all already known for a long time that technology does indeed evolve by gradual increments, is why this selection method would work. But I won't go there

Instead, I'll say that I hope that company's design engineers were at least smart enough to ask for a raise. Since all that the Biologist did was to increase their production work load. Before, they would design 1 nozzle then test that 1 nozzle, eventually over time they'd add up to 10. Now, they do all 10 in short

[Chuichupachichi]

time. If you consider any & all production companies, you'll see that its true to say that their designers' designs from the past, "didn't do very well" when compared to their more recent designs. Its true, regardless of whether or not they used the biologists method. Thats basically the essence of what was said by the man in the video. That only proves what was already known, that technology evolves! Perhaps, he can provide something empirical for biological evolutionary theory next time

[ArgusEyes]

The method via natural selection arrived at a solution that the designers could not achieve, and it did it by a completely unintellegent process of random change with selection. The final product was unique and unobtainable by intelligent designers.

If you want more talk about evolutionary theory then watch the full lecture which I have linked in the description bar.

[Chuichupachichi]

I'll be frank, the clown in the video is a bare faced liar. He said the company was very wealthy & spent much money on research??? Are we to believe they achieved the success that produced the wealth by using evolutionary, unintelligent selection design. Then, they tried intelligent design and started going broke, so the mindless engineers of unintelligence were brought back just in time to save the day

I respect you Argus, thus, I've clued you in before, you do much better with social issues

[sausage4mash]

what the fuck are you talking about ?

[ArgusEyes]

@Chuichupachichi. Professor Steve Jones did not give us enough information in this clip for you to draw all of those conclusions. He merely stated that they tried this method which produced a very efficient yet improbably design. It's an example of using the evolutionary technique that I myself use in the computer programs I write.

[Chuichupachichi]

No, he did say that the company is rich & they spend much money on R&D. Immediately after that he said that they hired many mathematicians (intelligent design) who didn't do very well. The understanding conveyed is that these are the guys on which the R&D money was being spent on. From his own account it can be questioned if its reasonable to conclude that the company had become successfully rich while employing what he described to be the "Intelligent Designers" with a deficiency in designing?

[ArgusEyes]

They weren't "deficient" at designing because they didn't come up with the more efficient design themselves. A computer can solve sums more quickly than I can but it does not mean I am "deficient" at sums. Because I am a human not a computer.

Also, this company is a leading company and no other company had the more efficient nozzle, they discovered it. If the designers were floundering when all other soap companies had far more efficient designs then I would say that under those (cont)

[ArgusEyes]

circumstances they would be deficient.

Your zeal to spit on evolution or anything that looks like it is making you say some pretty stupid things.

[Chuichupachichi]

You have to be joking. You actually have the audacity to throw the word stupid my way? Are you truly that blind? This whole farce is claiming to be proof of natural selection's validity. There isn't 1 thing natural about this whole process. They start with a nozzle that men designed - that involves intelligence. They make 10 copies & modify each one of them - that involves intelligence & there's nothing random about it since men determined exactly what those modifications would be. They test all

[Chuichupachichi]

ten & when 1 performs better than the others, it does so because that's the one they designed the best. Notice its form didn't come by way of mutation nor did its environment change

The Anti-Detergent, Dirt Dispenser Co. had an outdated design with their dirt dispenser contraption. They hired 10 teams of R&D people. Each team would be starting from the platform of the current outdated design with the intent to improve it. One team designed a Dirt Proliferator that kicked ass on detergent better

[Chuichupachichi]

than the other 9 teams' deficient dirtifyer's, much the same way in which I do on evolutionists all over YouTube. Except you guys are already as dirty as can be, with a rap sheet of fraudulence longer than it takes a virus to morph into an elephant. Just think, viruses being a single cell, have evoistically been around since when only they existed. All that time they've been mutating like a Mo-Fo as they do now. Yet, they're still stuck on virus just like you guys are stuck on "stupid"!

[sausage4mash]

Chuichupachichi for fuck sake ! read a biology book, NOT " answers in genisis . com" or the teachings of convicted fraudster Kent Hovand .

End of discussion , ALL this creationist crap has been debunked 1000.s of times over ,its boring now,Religion is NOT science !

[Chuichupachichi]

Get the sausage out already.......fool! If you weren't so brainwashed into monkey madness you might have realized that what you replied to with an obvious explosion of frustration, is neither biology nor creationism

However, one must recognize that it would be too difficult for a mere compilation of mutational defects to correctly distinguish between biology, creationism & the subject matter of "engineering" & "design" that I was discussing with Argus

Next time, when without reason, don't cry

[ArgusEyes]

"This whole farce is claiming to be proof of natural selection's validity"

This "farce" is merely an interesting and educational video for normal people. We don't need to prove natural selection's validity, it's settled science. You coming on and throwing a fit is the depressing state of affairs when talking about these subjects.

[ArgusEyes]

"Except you guys are already as dirty as can be"

Is that so?

"Next time, when without reason, don't cry"

Reason is calling all your opponents "dirty as can be" and "with a rap sheet of fraudulence" apparently.

[loqutor]

Even though I don't believe in evolution by natural selection, this is quite an interesting allusion.

[ArgusEyes]

Well, we apply these ideas in computer science where they work to evolve solutions. The aim is known (to get a route around a maze or a particular shape of nozel) but the solution to that aim is not.

[Chuichupachichi]

{The aim is known, but the solution to that aim is not}

That's always been true of any objective that entails producing a better version than the current one. In the 1950's one objective was to produce a better Grand Prix car. A solution was found without considering bio. evo. theory. Today, I can't see how wind tunnels relate to bio. evo theory. Also, natures wings cause lift & propulsion. Not down force that opposes propulsion.

You're British, you should understand what I'm talking about

[sausage4mash]

Interesting subjest evolutional modeling ,it is going to be a big thing in the future .

angus , I'm struck reading the comments that you have attracted a lot of Ignorant bible bashing right wing dumb arses,sigh.

If this is the mens movement ,count me out !

[ArgusEyes]

There is not other human being alive who believes all that you believe. I can accept that people who fight against feminism will have a tendency to be religious, this increases the reputation of religion in my eyes to be honest.

I accept our differences, chasing ideological purity is the fools path. I got an email a while ago from someone who complained that my paltry few videos on evolution/creationism detracts from the "movement", I would say the same thing to him.

[sausage4mash]

Fair point Angus ,pragmatism is the best route ,it's interesting that feminist Ignore evolutionary psychology and a lot of their adversaries on the far Right also have problems with evolution .

In my opinion the Achilles heel of 3rd wave feminism is Evolutionary psychology ,i.e. men and women are wired differently .

[Chuichupachichi]

Thats one for which I can't blame the feminists. Considering that there have been social scientists who have cleansed rape of its wrongful status by announcing that it's development & practice had been merely as a result of certain individual's innately natural evolutionary instincts to procreate thereby ensuring the advancement & survival of their genetics

[Chuichupachichi]

In short, their explanation has the dangerous potential to lead individuals to believe that their consideration of rape is due to morally neutral naturalistic causes

[Chuichupachichi]

Yes, considering the repercussions of the origins issue as one's which permeate into nearly every area of life within civilization & also afterlife. Is why it's an issue which requires a good measure of fortitude if your ever going to face the truth regarding the predetermined ends represented in the belief of having ancestral Amoebian forebearers. Not to mention facing the illogical explanation of being full status apes, descended from merely ape-"like" creatures. From men, request is granted

[ORVX]

that is one hell of an idea, wish I had the patience time and money to do these things in rl.

[meka4996]

yeah, how did you change it?

[menareangrynow]

Very interesting.