For a coding project at university, we had to crack a Playfair cipher. This was done by guessing a key, decrypting the text given with it and giving the output a numerical score. Letters in the key were then swapped to see which variation of the key was best.
You'd think taking the best key and repeating this process would be the best method, but we found that randomly selecting ANY better key made solving the problem more efficient. A dash of randomness seems to help some things.
this is brilliant. where can i find more of this? can i find such a program to play with by searching on the internet? i could use it for my inventions...
search for a documentary called "the secret life of chaos"
near the end, it shows the results of using evolutionary algorithms to create animations - basically a more advanced application of the content in this video.
GAs are good at finding solutions to complex problems that you never would have thought of, but when the problems become enormously complex GAs are to slow and some kind of Artificial (or real) intelligence needs to be applyed and then the GA can work from that. The Artificial intelligence itself can be created by a GA.
@felixmab66 98% of the known world wanted copernicus burned at the stake! look him up. the christian position is only 33% of the world, so they have adopted a position against 66% of the world. whats your point?
The End of Darwinism mentions dozens of saltations also known as "problem novelties." The one most debated by biologists is the wing of the insect. Darwin himself said that the sudden appearance of a wing would be miraculous.
Considering the facts about the giraffe presented in my post below, is there any Darwinian explanation for the evolution of the giraffe? Gould called Darwin's giraffe story a "weak and foolish fantasy."
This was the first comment I read on the comment tree, and I'm curious as to if you are debating against the "Vegetation pressures" theory and the "sexual selection" theory? Or are you an "Creationist" or "intelligent Design advocate" (not much difference) trying to use Giraffes to disprove evolution?
HOW Giraffes evolved does not change THAT Giraffes evolved. There is very good genetic understandings to conclude THAT evolution occurs, BUT it is only the HOW questions that are debated.
HOW is a big question, If we go by the fossil evidence, the giraffe is an evolutionary jump, i.e., a saltation. Darwin disbelieved in saltations saying such events would be miraculous. In the very political world of Darwinsm, the giraffe became the textbooks' leading example of Darwinian transmutation. Gould noticed that and in 1981 began a campaign to get the giraffe removed from textbooks. This had no effect for many years, and even in the 21st cenury the giraffe lingered in some books.
I do not care about the beliefs of scientists. Genetics demonstrates that evolution can occur in short periods of time. The E-coli experiment at Michigan State University headed by Richard Lenski, as mentioned in Richard Dawkin's "Greatest Show On Earth"; demonstrates that "saltations" do occur. Something Darwin would NOT have known about.
Different in what sense? They are both biological replicating organism. Do you mean they are quite different at a genetic level? If you are talking about mere appearance then you yourself are being deceived. The Giraffe is the result of genetics, and genetics are the result of evolution through natural selection.
Darwinism reqjuires feedback from the environment. The giraffe has distinctive features, such as the backflow valves,.in addition to the long neck. How do you get all that in a saltation?
I'm not a biologist, nor do I study genetics. I do read peer reviewed articles and studies, and my conclusion would have to be that it is due to a "saltation" much like the one that occurred in the example I posted earlier.
Read the study done by Richard Lenski at Michigan state University. You can find the detailed description and outcome of his studies online. Have a read. You will find it at Richard Lenski's MSU website.
I read the Science News account of Lenski's experiment. It doesn't solve the macroevolution prioblem. Some microbiologists say that bacteria are so variable they do not really have species.
If Gould wanted to remove Giraffe from the text books because there were claims made about it's evolutionary development exceeded the evidence, then I accept that argument. However, if "The vegetation pressures" theory or the "sexual selection" theory are mere speculation as they tend to be. Then the theories however can be mentioned as speculation which seem valid.
I don't understand how he applied this cumulative Darwinian evolution to achieve the optimum shape in 30 generations, which in turn is troubling me yet again about my understanding of how the process as a whole works.
evolutionary algorithms are basically just clever search. when you don't know what option is the best, you make some alterations to your best guess and select the best alteration, then repeat. that's what evolution does to species too.
Why do you keep trying to find a syntax work around here? No matter what you do, no matter what phrase you come up with, no matter whatever BS you want to say, you're always going to require some sort if intelligent manipulation. And comparing us to computers, intelligently designed machines, isn't helping you.
what you mean "keep trying", this was my 2nd post here, and any way being designed by us does not make computer itself intelligent, so you have no argument.
Yes, it does. Because they're the product of intelligent mathematical and engineering manipulation created to perform intelligent tasks. Therefor, the computer is intelligent, because it was created to do things that require intelligence, be it preprogrammed scripts or not, it's still operating on an intelligent level because it is not random and it is not chaotic and it is subject to limitations inherit in mathematical and engineering properties.
@DWest, cool, so we should start giving computer rights equal to humans'. hey, my toilet is made by intelligent plumber, although its task is not so nobel, but maybe you could consider that it is also intelligent? I'm sure it will be happy to hear that.
ha ha you got me there, but I dont think I have seen anything intelligent but not conscious. I don't believe computers are intelligent, at least not more than a number of stones or whatever objects you can use to count, because that's what computer are basically used for, arent they.
Cumulative means step-by-step. So instead of going through all possible variations of a solution, you pick out the ones which are better than the previous ones. This rules out invalid solutions faster than the trial & error method. Surprisingly, this method isnt new to software developers. They instictively follow this path - more or less. Probably because its some kind of hidden law of physics :)
Funny, you brought my attention back to this video, and now it makes perfect sense to me, ... perhaps it has something to do with morning coffee and the like!?
You are obviously an uneducated, scientificly illiterate moron in that case. This is as obvious as 1+2=3. You should join a cult like scientology, you'll fit in perfect
Do I have to be religous to believe in intelligent design? I hope not... cause I do. Sorry guys, can't help it. Maybe I'm just not as Einsteinian as you guys... But it's the actuall engineering and machinistic our body's work that leads me to believe there was some.. I dunno.. Some inner-matrix of order behind all energy that categorizes it and places in correct correlation to other energies so that they may all co-exsist. Invisable gears grinding to make exsistance possible. That's just my view
I don't think that our bodies are designed, at least not directly, per se. I think it makes more sense to say that the universe is an experiment run by some intelligence species, with the express intent of getting some type of complex life to develop.
This is a great view to have, I believe, as it does not preclude evolution (which is very well understood), but also allows for some type of external reality.
What until recently was the textbooks' top example for natural selection, the giraffe, actually is an argument for intelligent design. Darwin erred in thinking that giraffes became tall because they had to compete for tree leaves in times of drought (at that time they eat bushes and grass), and there is no fossil evidence for the giraffe's evolving to its great height. This and other such problems are discussed in The End of Darwinism by Eugene G. Windchy.
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
Conversion by fear seems petty. It's like threatening with the boogey man. Except that only works with fearfull childish people... Conversion by respect would be much more noble. Do you not think that that is a wiser and more intelligent tactic of conversion?
2Pet. 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this `coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation. But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
I did not take words out of his mouth I quoted the words that came from his mouth and they are easily understandable. My question is: How can anyone look at such a perfect universe and suppose it was not designed.
You are still insisting that Einstein believed in the same god of the bible as you believe, and i still hold when he says "i do not believe in a personal god" he means, yes maybe something divine created the universe but is long gone and is not watching over us with a pen and book to know our sins so he can burn us for eternity in hell.
Oh and thanx for being so condescending as to suggest that those of us who don't believe are "following [our] own evil desires". I did not expect anything else
i assume you weren't replying to my comment with that? If you were i just wanted to clarify i don't think Einstein doesn't believe in god, i just think he doesn't believe in the biblical god, which is what sonarkicker insists that he does!
Anyway, Einstein didn't believe in a "personal god" (Meaning a Theistic god) he believed in, and I quote, I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. He is also quoted saying "If there is something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it." That's Pantheism.
As Richard Dawkins said, Pantheism is simply sexed-up Atheism. Let's stop the BS: EINSTEIN WAS AN ATHEIST! Nobody who contemplates the cosmos so profoundly and sincerely can be anything except an Atheist.
einstein believed in god, he believed that god created everything but wouldn't make it too complex for mankind to understand, and that's what he wanted, he wanted to understand everthing.
Although Einstein metaphorically and poetically referred to "The Old One", he explicitly denied the possibility of a ''personal god" a la Judaism,Christianity and Islam. Like all truly rational and knowledgeable people, Einstein considered belief in such an entity ignorant and ludicrous.
Wikipedia does not cut it as a reliable source in the academic world. Especially on a topic such as this. For all I know, you could have written that entry. If you were to site a wikipedia entry in the literature review of a thesis report, you would get your ass handed to you by your academic advisor.
No, but Wikipedia often gives you legitimate references for their information. In that way, Wikipedia articles are at least a good "spring board" for further research into certain subjects.
Actually, studies have been done on the reliability of wikipedia, and it is almost as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica. And in some cases, wikipedia is WAY ahead of Britannica. Information is up to date by the day.
Google "case for wikipedia state of my ignorance" and read the blog article about it.
@SMSBJM1981 Wow, you do understand the Wikipedia articles itself cites sources at the bottom. I actually am both a professor and a contributor to Wikipedia. The site is much more reliable and accurate than many other sources because of its constantly evolving nature.
@michellegold045 Yes I know that. What I am saying is that Wikipedia gives a cursory glance at a topic. If you are interested in a true literature review on a topic, one needs to dive into the peer reviewed literature. A thesis report or journal article with Wikipedia citations is not going to cut it.
@SMSBJM1981 Wow, you do understand the Wikipedia articles itself cites sources at the bottom. I actually am both a professor and a contributor to Wikipedia. The site is much more reliable and accurate than many other sources because of its constantly evolving nature.
@SMSBJM1981 You're only half-right. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However it is a great place to kick off research into things by its ability to collate large amounts of information; the citation links in the footer of the pages are where the magic happens, linking to a wealth of primary sources.
@SMSBJM1981 But let not that confuse you about the value that Wikipedia contains, even in academics. You can go in to any page and make a change, but if it's not an improvement, it will likely be reverted back to it's appropriate, peer reviewed form. Wikipedia is an immensely comprehensive source for citations. You can start your research at wikipedia, make sure the citations are valid and source those citations, and your ass will be handed to you be no one and remain attached appropriately.
I do not believe in evolution as "The origin of species" I do belive in adaptation over time. I believe that the Biblical teachings and scientific discoveries support eachother the main difference is the time frame. I believe I have made this pretty clear. I never mentioned a magical creation. I am not God and I don't know the methods he used to accomplish it. We have gotten away from the main topic.
Evolution never says anything about the "origin of species". The book is called that, but in fact, has nothing in it to suggest how the species started. It does, however, talk about how they differentiated. I, too, do not know if something divine started the universe, but i don't see the reason why that "something" would care if i pray to it every day or marry someone of the same-sex (not saying i am a lesbian, just an example). You, on the other hand, probably believe that's a sin, am i right?
I just don't see the connection between divine-push, and divine-intervention and worship! There's no need for worship/fear/hate/sin/preaching etc. if you believe the divine is the push and the rest just the work unraveling, well then the divine just really does not care about you at all! However, i would still like you to tell me where the need for worship comes from and would still like you to answer my previous question about the magic-god, because i truly am curious! And no bible quotes pls.
adaptation over time is evolution...and how can you say that biblical teachings and scientific discoveries support each other? when it in fact is the other way around. there are tons of examples, just to take a few, mathew 4:8 says that the earth is flat,Deuteronomy 14:18 says that bats are unclean birds. and the bible suggests that the earth is around 6k year old. and there are alot more that are plain out wrong scientificly not to mention the moral standards....
This proofs God is right. Genesis ch. 1 verse 24 says, Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God let all creatures evolve in what ever way they needed. The missing link from chimps to humans is God making us in His image.
This proofs God is right. Genesis ch. 1 verse 24 says, Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God let all creatures evolve in what ever way they needed. The missing link from chimps to humans is God making us in His image.
I never said "evolve fins" I said gills you seem to have a problem with misquoting. I may have misspoken by saying gills let me clarify. By the theory of evolution humans should have over "THOUSANDS" of years evolved a new respiratory process to prevent drowning." Once again no biologist here just my interpretation of what is being taught in the classes of "Higher Education".
Einstein's belief in a created universe does in NO way shape or form give proof to the creation of the universe by the same god that wrote the bible.
You, on the other hand, quoted the Genesis for the creation of whales and other such creatures. Einstein, i am convinced, would laugh at the face of anyone who disputes the legitimacy of the Evolutionary Theory and supports the replacement of it by the "genesis theory" of intelligent design. He did not believe in a PERSONAL god,
Once again i am in awe of your misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is not outcome-oriented. Genes do not mutate to produce a certain predetermined result. I can see how that would be a hard concept for you to grasp, since according to your beliefs god had a rough copy of everything he was going to create before doing so, but Evolution does not claim such omnipotence.
The theory states that in the events of mutations in the genes, only the genes of certain aptness to environment or outside influences will be strong enough to provide increased chance of survival, and therefore increased chance of reproduction. Therefore the genes will survive and over years may, or may not, dominate the offspring of said species, depending on how many further mutations may have occurred within that time.
However if you'd be so kind to explain to me why, even in your belief in the omniscient god, you so hardly cling to your "magician" god of *abracadabra*, instead of one that is intricate enough in his actions to be able to set something so complicated, as evolution, in action and create well-deserved awe, it'd be very appreciated. I, personally, have never understood why people would do such an insult to an "all powerful deity" to make him into such a trivial character.
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." Albert Einstein
Spinoza's god is in no way the same god as the god of the bible. In your case, i believe yours is not a misquotation, but a misunderstanding and misrepresentation altogether. But then again, that's just my opinion, you will MOST LIKELY disagree, and this would not surprise me. I only ask that you do not quote those who you do not fully understand as supporting your arguments and beliefs. No christian would, after all, reject the belief in a "Personal god" which Einstein blatantly did!
This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed.
Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists."
Secondly you have not thoroughly analyzed Einstein's statement and in putting down my point of view you have shown yourself to be SUCH a person. Religion is for each person to decide for themselves. However Einstein made several statements that showed he believed the universe was created.
First of all Biology is not my profession so I am no expert. However I have studied Anthropolgy, Biology and Astronomy a bit in school. I am not disputing the discoveries of science but the more I have studied the more I am convinced that there is a God or if that offends you a Creator. Nothing can come from nothing.
You know what sonarkicker? Even religion evolves including having different versions of the Bible. Did Adam and Eve have a copy? That would be a first edition.
Most people don't realise that lifeforms weren't always as complicated as they are today. All life evolved in partnership with others: each generation taking part in a kind of arms race between the species in order to survive and reproduce; only survivors reproduce, the product of this trial and error giving the complexity we see today, after millions of generations.
He conducted an experiment towards a known objective kinda redundant and irrelevant if ya ask me. Like someone said before me "Do the fins reproduce yet?"
you clearly arent intelligent enough to be privileged with being able to access this information. crawl back into your cave and enjoy your life in the dark ages, its where religion belongs.
The simple fact that you think we can "evolve fins" during the 3-4 minutes it might take you to drown shows me how little knowledge you have of the process of evolution. You are ignorant of its theory and still claim to "know" it's wrong. There IS an evolutionary step that makes us different then our ancestors, it's the fact that although most of the time our breathing is an involuntary process, we have learned to control it. Therefore we do not inhale water the minute our heads go under.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The answer is found in the first chapter of the first book of the bible
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:21 KJV)
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
"I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the worlds, insofar as it allows our inadequate sense to appreciate it."
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it" Albert Einstein
Let's not put words into the mouths of those who are no longer with us and unable to defend themselves shall we? It is the practice of immoral and unethical techniques to debate the acceptability of a certain point of view. I am certain u would never want to be seen as SUCH a person, i am convinced u were just misinformed!
What is the evidence that path blood vesicles follow in dogs as they grow is caused by evolution? Typical Delusional blabber from Dawkins, a theologian in science.
The path blood vesicles follow as they grow is not programed, but a response relayed by messenger proteins called VEGFA and their density determines blood vesicle growth on demand as endothelial progenitor cells grow and branch using VEGFR1 and VEGFR2. It's a modified quarum sensing systems inherited from microbes.
By evolution I specifically mean Evolution from natural selection as is often the only Evolution argument Dawkins considers. The simple concept of an animal breeder and reality bent beond recognition in attempt to fit a mind that only can consider one concept.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wow this video convinced me there is actually a designer in nature the way the computer was designed. Dawkins should stop cowering in debates. Perhaps he knew he will be eaten alive like what happend in the Hitchens vs Craig debate.
mavrickiii you're a dope, dawkins has better stuff to do then go arournd debating some prick about morality. craig hasn't even offered up anything that constitutes a debate. if there's no god there is no morality or purpose in life isn't a debate it's his opinion. and all it proves is that if for sure no god existed we would just make one up to giving meaning to a life for sheep like you.
I love dawkins!! I have actually written some of these programs in my freshman engineering classes. People don't realize how mush we use this in the aircraft engineering field.
The very fabric of modern society has been reliant upon evolutionarily evolved technologies since the 1970's or so, but - to hear creationists - Darwin, Sagan, Dawkins, pretty much everyone is wrong. Of course they'll happily partake in the benefits of our technological society - thanks very much - they just don't see much need for it - If there is a more short-sighted, ideologically impaired & self-serving bunch out there I'm not sure who they are.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hmm, neat experiments. All done by...(gasp) intelligent designers!
They got the results they wanted. But nature never produces anything more complex than the DNA code of information in each organism. Each organism has its limits and they won't exceed those limits...not without intelligent outside help.
The stupidity continues. I can just as easily say that this proves that there must have been evolution to have evolved the person who made the program and that therefore just the producing of the program proves the reality of evolution. But I'm not that stupid.
It's analogous to "the designer" creating the earth in anticipation of life forming on it and evolving into what we know. It's not a bad idea, there's only so much about the earth's formation we can know, but it's no better than any other.
I suppose you have me on the arbitrary limits imposed on nature. If we could just get past those somehow. It's actually ironic, as a result of out intellect I don't think we'll be able to evolve much further. We'll never be open to selective breeding, etc.
Some of the replies in this thread are mind-numbingly stupid.
Look guys evolution is a pretty simple concept when you get right down to but and attaching mysticism to the origins of man detracts from just how remarkable it is that such complex creatures arose from such a simple process being allowed to run for BILLIONS(life arouse ~3.5GYA geologically speaking this is very fast) of years.
God may have had a hand in guiding evolution but we did not come from Adam and Eve(who had two gay sons)
Precambrian rabbits, or other proof of advanced forms living long before the simpler forms we believe they evolved from, or that all forms appeared at once.
A well tested theory that placed the age of the earth at less than 100 million years old.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Looks like Evolution works with information off of information, and "knows" when it's hit the mark. Which would make evolution kind of smart. Kind of... Intelligent.
I saw a hot Egyptologist on Craig Ferguson a few months back. I can't remember her name, though. I think she was there promoting a special on the Discovery Channel.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
he's so damn sexy rite!...u might as well go suck his cock while your at it since hes so irresistibly sexy. hopefully u evolved a mouth with salivary glands to help u better accommodate this task. ill be on the look out next time he he's speaking at a conference, ill be sure to look for you just below the pulpit he speaks at :P
God said, let there be God! And then the lights went out. Then God said, let there be light. And then, after light was created again, God set forth to write the Bible. But then God remembered that the lights were on in the beginning-- even before he thought he created light. Then God was confused.
I have read the bible. And not just the King James version, but the gideons, the new international, and Oh yeah, the DIRECT TRANSLATION TO ENGLISH.
If you're still reading the KJV, then I feel compelled to tell you that the Lucifer's descent story that you believe is completely wrong, because of a simple (possibly intentional) mistranslation. "O Morning Star" (original translation) is not a term for "Lucifer" (KJV).
"Really? So can god create a slice of pizza so hot that it burns even the roof of HIS mouth?"
-erm do i need to notice how that question sounds incredible retarded?
Almost same as "scientist's" SPECULATION about evolution.
"and God would not be "god" if he is -created-" that s what i said, then u answered: "Thats not necessarily true."
-Oh yes IT IS NECESSERILY TRUE cuz Lord said: "I am only God, don't have any other gods exept me!" (thats my free translation cuz i dont have english bible)
"-erm do i need to notice how that question sounds incredible retarded?"
Alright, if that's not cryptic enough for you "Can god create a stone so large that even he cannot lift it?"
"Oh yes IT IS NECESSERILY TRUE cuz Lord said: "I am only God, don't have any other gods exept me!" (thats my free translation cuz i dont have english bible) "
And Hitler said "I'm really a nice guy!"
Dont use the fucking bible to prove the fucking bible.
"Almost same as "scientist's" SPECULATION about evolution."
Um, no, thats not true at all. Mythology and theology has no experimental testing, so it is NOTHING BUT SPECULATION. Its not based off of anything that can be seen in the known world.
Evolution actually has FACTS behind it. Your beliefs have nothing but stories passed down in the oral tradition for 500 years before they were even written down.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
have u ever heared for History and Archeology? O.o
as i can see u DON'T WANT to see any evidence about christian religion, probably u did never even tryied to study them (probably cuz your own , personal prejudiced opinions)... but u r ready to spit as every other atheistic narow minded satan cultist, right!?
If u conntinue to talk with that attitude with me WeedGrenPowerRanger u can freely back off, cuz you seems to be pretty ignorant and proud person, and i really dont need that crap.
"as i can see u DON'T WANT to see any evidence about christian religion probably u did never even tryied to study them (probably cuz your own , personal prejudiced opinions)"
No, son, I know more than you do about your own religion, I'm sure, seeing as you're probably reading and believing in the KJV (totally flawed). My point is that the so called "evidence" you speak of doesnt exist in the empirical sense. Your god is no more valid a hypothesis than the dung beetle pushing the sun in the sky.
the feeling of burning or burning in a reaction sense because in theory God could do both but why would God want to when burning hurts? God created everything according to the bible so you could say that anyone's mouth that gets burned from eating a hot slice of pizza is the same as God's mouth being burnt b/c he created it
I know the pizza one's a bad analogy, but I was going for humor, and I really wanted to see if anyone would answer it. Read the reply I made to him for the actual paradoxical question.
smarthandsomeguy I've posted my last response. This really pointless since your blind faith in evolution resists all reasonable argument. I will not even be responding to your response to this comment.
I pointed you to sources which would allow you to write a program that shows the priciple of evo in all it's glory. I have no faith whtsoever in the principle of evo.
talkorigins . org/faqs/comdesc/section4 . html
Read that and ask again: Does it require faith to conclude common ancestry, or does it take faith to deny it?
Denying that GAs work, is like saying:
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion - a joke, not a scientific statement.
For a coding project at university, we had to crack a Playfair cipher. This was done by guessing a key, decrypting the text given with it and giving the output a numerical score. Letters in the key were then swapped to see which variation of the key was best.
You'd think taking the best key and repeating this process would be the best method, but we found that randomly selecting ANY better key made solving the problem more efficient. A dash of randomness seems to help some things.
megatrollsecurity 3 weeks ago
this is brilliant. where can i find more of this? can i find such a program to play with by searching on the internet? i could use it for my inventions...
LANN98 9 months ago
@LANN98
search for a documentary called "the secret life of chaos"
near the end, it shows the results of using evolutionary algorithms to create animations - basically a more advanced application of the content in this video.
lolgepwnt 5 months ago
Richard Dawkins is really cute in this clip.
LuvStruckMess 10 months ago
Interesting
midgety1 10 months ago
Wait..."West Berlin"?
How old is this footage?
See, there is no "West Berlin" since 1990.
The two Germanies reunited....
NKA23 10 months ago
WOW! This is simply UN-believable! I'm impressed that I haven't heard of blind evolution as an engineering technique...
dgmulf 11 months ago
Q.E.D. mfucka!
TD47 1 year ago
Comment removed
TD47 1 year ago
Q.E.D.
Ollieswede 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The biggest problem with Darwinism is that it makes ruthlessness and reason kissing cousins, when in truth they are mutually exclusive.
GhostofCliffGullett 1 year ago
HE IS SO GREATCOMPLITELY DEDICATED TO PROOF
WE ONLY NEED INTELLECTUAL MORALS -ETHICS-TO FULLFILL OUR
EXPERIENCE OF LIFE...LAWS OF SCIENCE ALSO SHOULD BE TAKEN AS LAWS OF SOCIETY (REGARDLESS HE DOESNT SAY DIRECTLY)
AT YOU TUBE HUXLEYS SPEECH IS AVAILABLE TITLED AS =====
SCIENTIFIC DICTATORSHIP ...EXPRESSING THE BURDEN OF HIS CONSCIOUSS.. GOGGLE EARTH HOUSE HE LIVE PARK HE TRIPPED ON LSD
DAWKINS IS MAKING A LIFE AINT GREAT AND WE ALL HAVE TO LIVE HIS PERCEPTION
artregeous 1 year ago
Dawkins voice is soothing.
madjimms 1 year ago 14
Dawkins looks like a little boy in this video, lol
thebutler89 1 year ago
Well, persons, who can argue against that, or against the computer programms, I assume, have not understand the evolutionary theory ...
That's of course just a feeling, but still ...
Nederdien 1 year ago
GAs are good at finding solutions to complex problems that you never would have thought of, but when the problems become enormously complex GAs are to slow and some kind of Artificial (or real) intelligence needs to be applyed and then the GA can work from that. The Artificial intelligence itself can be created by a GA.
Houshalter 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@-)--)--
click on my name for the u rl to see the DANCE OF DEATH ON TOP OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER & see how we crushed the NEW ATHEIST MOVEMENT...
Atheist:
have you for but a moment considered that you have adopted a position
against 98% of the human race, both past and present?
do you think you are RIGHT and they are all WRONG?
WRONG
@-)--)--
felixmab66 2 years ago
@felixmab66 98% of the known world wanted copernicus burned at the stake! look him up. the christian position is only 33% of the world, so they have adopted a position against 66% of the world. whats your point?
SuperAthiest1 10 months ago
The End of Darwinism mentions dozens of saltations also known as "problem novelties." The one most debated by biologists is the wing of the insect. Darwin himself said that the sudden appearance of a wing would be miraculous.
luftigus 2 years ago
Considering the facts about the giraffe presented in my post below, is there any Darwinian explanation for the evolution of the giraffe? Gould called Darwin's giraffe story a "weak and foolish fantasy."
luftigus 2 years ago
Still no response concerning the giraffe?
luftigus 2 years ago
This was the first comment I read on the comment tree, and I'm curious as to if you are debating against the "Vegetation pressures" theory and the "sexual selection" theory? Or are you an "Creationist" or "intelligent Design advocate" (not much difference) trying to use Giraffes to disprove evolution?
HOW Giraffes evolved does not change THAT Giraffes evolved. There is very good genetic understandings to conclude THAT evolution occurs, BUT it is only the HOW questions that are debated.
Gwisss 2 years ago
HOW is a big question, If we go by the fossil evidence, the giraffe is an evolutionary jump, i.e., a saltation. Darwin disbelieved in saltations saying such events would be miraculous. In the very political world of Darwinsm, the giraffe became the textbooks' leading example of Darwinian transmutation. Gould noticed that and in 1981 began a campaign to get the giraffe removed from textbooks. This had no effect for many years, and even in the 21st cenury the giraffe lingered in some books.
luftigus 2 years ago
Great, so what is your conclusion?
"Darwin disbelieved in Saltations..."
I do not care about the beliefs of scientists. Genetics demonstrates that evolution can occur in short periods of time. The E-coli experiment at Michigan State University headed by Richard Lenski, as mentioned in Richard Dawkin's "Greatest Show On Earth"; demonstrates that "saltations" do occur. Something Darwin would NOT have known about.
Gwisss 2 years ago
A giraffe is quite different from E coli.
luftigus 2 years ago
Different in what sense? They are both biological replicating organism. Do you mean they are quite different at a genetic level? If you are talking about mere appearance then you yourself are being deceived. The Giraffe is the result of genetics, and genetics are the result of evolution through natural selection.
or maybe I'm missing your point...
Gwisss 2 years ago
Darwinism reqjuires feedback from the environment. The giraffe has distinctive features, such as the backflow valves,.in addition to the long neck. How do you get all that in a saltation?
luftigus 2 years ago
I'm not a biologist, nor do I study genetics. I do read peer reviewed articles and studies, and my conclusion would have to be that it is due to a "saltation" much like the one that occurred in the example I posted earlier.
Read the study done by Richard Lenski at Michigan state University. You can find the detailed description and outcome of his studies online. Have a read. You will find it at Richard Lenski's MSU website.
Gwisss 2 years ago
I read the Science News account of Lenski's experiment. It doesn't solve the macroevolution prioblem. Some microbiologists say that bacteria are so variable they do not really have species.
luftigus 2 years ago
If Gould wanted to remove Giraffe from the text books because there were claims made about it's evolutionary development exceeded the evidence, then I accept that argument. However, if "The vegetation pressures" theory or the "sexual selection" theory are mere speculation as they tend to be. Then the theories however can be mentioned as speculation which seem valid.
Gwisss 2 years ago
Correction: In that sentence Gould said "speculation" not "fantasy."
luftigus 2 years ago
So god designed the large intestine of a dog on a computer? (joke)
lewisner 2 years ago
I don't understand how he applied this cumulative Darwinian evolution to achieve the optimum shape in 30 generations, which in turn is troubling me yet again about my understanding of how the process as a whole works.
I wish I was a bit smarter sometimes darn it!
M0THERKN0WSBEST 2 years ago
evolutionary algorithms are basically just clever search. when you don't know what option is the best, you make some alterations to your best guess and select the best alteration, then repeat. that's what evolution does to species too.
iwantcoolname 2 years ago
@iwantcoolname
Lol, making a "Best guess" implies some source of intelligence.
DWest174 2 years ago
@DWest174 if our intelligence is only making a best guess, than we're no better than computers. and I should know (programmer)
iwantcoolname 2 years ago
@iwantcoolname
Why do you keep trying to find a syntax work around here? No matter what you do, no matter what phrase you come up with, no matter whatever BS you want to say, you're always going to require some sort if intelligent manipulation. And comparing us to computers, intelligently designed machines, isn't helping you.
DWest174 2 years ago
what you mean "keep trying", this was my 2nd post here, and any way being designed by us does not make computer itself intelligent, so you have no argument.
iwantcoolname 2 years ago
@iwantcoolname
Yes, it does. Because they're the product of intelligent mathematical and engineering manipulation created to perform intelligent tasks. Therefor, the computer is intelligent, because it was created to do things that require intelligence, be it preprogrammed scripts or not, it's still operating on an intelligent level because it is not random and it is not chaotic and it is subject to limitations inherit in mathematical and engineering properties.
DWest174 2 years ago
@DWest, cool, so we should start giving computer rights equal to humans'. hey, my toilet is made by intelligent plumber, although its task is not so nobel, but maybe you could consider that it is also intelligent? I'm sure it will be happy to hear that.
iwantcoolname 2 years ago
I didn't say it was conscious.
DWest174 2 years ago
ha ha you got me there, but I dont think I have seen anything intelligent but not conscious. I don't believe computers are intelligent, at least not more than a number of stones or whatever objects you can use to count, because that's what computer are basically used for, arent they.
iwantcoolname 2 years ago
Cumulative means step-by-step. So instead of going through all possible variations of a solution, you pick out the ones which are better than the previous ones. This rules out invalid solutions faster than the trial & error method. Surprisingly, this method isnt new to software developers. They instictively follow this path - more or less. Probably because its some kind of hidden law of physics :)
WolYou 2 years ago
Funny, you brought my attention back to this video, and now it makes perfect sense to me, ... perhaps it has something to do with morning coffee and the like!?
M0THERKN0WSBEST 2 years ago
You are obviously an uneducated, scientificly illiterate moron in that case. This is as obvious as 1+2=3. You should join a cult like scientology, you'll fit in perfect
AfricanAtheist83 2 years ago
Do I have to be religous to believe in intelligent design? I hope not... cause I do. Sorry guys, can't help it. Maybe I'm just not as Einsteinian as you guys... But it's the actuall engineering and machinistic our body's work that leads me to believe there was some.. I dunno.. Some inner-matrix of order behind all energy that categorizes it and places in correct correlation to other energies so that they may all co-exsist. Invisable gears grinding to make exsistance possible. That's just my view
DWest174 2 years ago
I don't think that our bodies are designed, at least not directly, per se. I think it makes more sense to say that the universe is an experiment run by some intelligence species, with the express intent of getting some type of complex life to develop.
This is a great view to have, I believe, as it does not preclude evolution (which is very well understood), but also allows for some type of external reality.
GhostOfPaley 2 years ago
What until recently was the textbooks' top example for natural selection, the giraffe, actually is an argument for intelligent design. Darwin erred in thinking that giraffes became tall because they had to compete for tree leaves in times of drought (at that time they eat bushes and grass), and there is no fossil evidence for the giraffe's evolving to its great height. This and other such problems are discussed in The End of Darwinism by Eugene G. Windchy.
luftigus 2 years ago
Comment removed
luftigus 2 years ago
This is really old. The west german army.
Rebootrevival 2 years ago
Asombroso
superCatia 2 years ago
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
Think about it.
sonarkicker55 2 years ago
Conversion by fear seems petty. It's like threatening with the boogey man. Except that only works with fearfull childish people... Conversion by respect would be much more noble. Do you not think that that is a wiser and more intelligent tactic of conversion?
BrunnhildeDieWalkure 2 years ago
2Pet. 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this `coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation. But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
sonarkicker55 2 years ago
I leave you with this verse written 2,000 years ago.
sonarkicker55 2 years ago
I did not take words out of his mouth I quoted the words that came from his mouth and they are easily understandable. My question is: How can anyone look at such a perfect universe and suppose it was not designed.
sonarkicker55 2 years ago
You are still insisting that Einstein believed in the same god of the bible as you believe, and i still hold when he says "i do not believe in a personal god" he means, yes maybe something divine created the universe but is long gone and is not watching over us with a pen and book to know our sins so he can burn us for eternity in hell.
Oh and thanx for being so condescending as to suggest that those of us who don't believe are "following [our] own evil desires". I did not expect anything else
acceptanceisbliss 2 years ago
Einstein was a pantheist which is philisophically indistinguishable from atheism.
Pantheism is the belief that the Universe IS god.
TheFifthApes 2 years ago
i assume you weren't replying to my comment with that? If you were i just wanted to clarify i don't think Einstein doesn't believe in god, i just think he doesn't believe in the biblical god, which is what sonarkicker insists that he does!
acceptanceisbliss 2 years ago
Anyway, Einstein didn't believe in a "personal god" (Meaning a Theistic god) he believed in, and I quote, I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. He is also quoted saying "If there is something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it." That's Pantheism.
TheFifthApes 2 years ago
As Richard Dawkins said, Pantheism is simply sexed-up Atheism. Let's stop the BS: EINSTEIN WAS AN ATHEIST! Nobody who contemplates the cosmos so profoundly and sincerely can be anything except an Atheist.
Hottides 2 years ago
einstein believed in god, he believed that god created everything but wouldn't make it too complex for mankind to understand, and that's what he wanted, he wanted to understand everthing.
roflroflomgomg 2 years ago
rofl, do your homework dumbass.
SMSBJM1981 2 years ago
rofl, go to wikipedia , type einstein, CTRL + F "god"
you'll find enough there.
roflroflomgomg 2 years ago
Although Einstein metaphorically and poetically referred to "The Old One", he explicitly denied the possibility of a ''personal god" a la Judaism,Christianity and Islam. Like all truly rational and knowledgeable people, Einstein considered belief in such an entity ignorant and ludicrous.
Hottides 2 years ago
Wikipedia does not cut it as a reliable source in the academic world. Especially on a topic such as this. For all I know, you could have written that entry. If you were to site a wikipedia entry in the literature review of a thesis report, you would get your ass handed to you by your academic advisor.
SMSBJM1981 2 years ago 5
No, but Wikipedia often gives you legitimate references for their information. In that way, Wikipedia articles are at least a good "spring board" for further research into certain subjects.
GhostOfPaley 2 years ago
@SMSBJM1981
Actually, studies have been done on the reliability of wikipedia, and it is almost as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica. And in some cases, wikipedia is WAY ahead of Britannica. Information is up to date by the day.
Google "case for wikipedia state of my ignorance" and read the blog article about it.
zakiechan 1 year ago
@SMSBJM1981 Wow, you do understand the Wikipedia articles itself cites sources at the bottom. I actually am both a professor and a contributor to Wikipedia. The site is much more reliable and accurate than many other sources because of its constantly evolving nature.
michellegold045 1 year ago
@michellegold045 Yes I know that. What I am saying is that Wikipedia gives a cursory glance at a topic. If you are interested in a true literature review on a topic, one needs to dive into the peer reviewed literature. A thesis report or journal article with Wikipedia citations is not going to cut it.
SMSBJM1981 10 months ago
@SMSBJM1981 Wow, you do understand the Wikipedia articles itself cites sources at the bottom. I actually am both a professor and a contributor to Wikipedia. The site is much more reliable and accurate than many other sources because of its constantly evolving nature.
michellegold045 1 year ago 2
@SMSBJM1981 You're only half-right. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However it is a great place to kick off research into things by its ability to collate large amounts of information; the citation links in the footer of the pages are where the magic happens, linking to a wealth of primary sources.
pyrespirit 10 months ago
@pyrespirit
Yup.
Wikipedia is great if you start to do research about a topic.
NKA23 10 months ago
@SMSBJM1981 But let not that confuse you about the value that Wikipedia contains, even in academics. You can go in to any page and make a change, but if it's not an improvement, it will likely be reverted back to it's appropriate, peer reviewed form. Wikipedia is an immensely comprehensive source for citations. You can start your research at wikipedia, make sure the citations are valid and source those citations, and your ass will be handed to you be no one and remain attached appropriately.
exstntlstfrtn 10 months ago
Einstein was a deist, plain and simple. He didn't believe in a personal God, nor did he believe in a God who gave two shi*ts about human affairs.
GhostOfPaley 2 years ago
I do not believe in evolution as "The origin of species" I do belive in adaptation over time. I believe that the Biblical teachings and scientific discoveries support eachother the main difference is the time frame. I believe I have made this pretty clear. I never mentioned a magical creation. I am not God and I don't know the methods he used to accomplish it. We have gotten away from the main topic.
sonarkicker55 2 years ago
Evolution never says anything about the "origin of species". The book is called that, but in fact, has nothing in it to suggest how the species started. It does, however, talk about how they differentiated. I, too, do not know if something divine started the universe, but i don't see the reason why that "something" would care if i pray to it every day or marry someone of the same-sex (not saying i am a lesbian, just an example). You, on the other hand, probably believe that's a sin, am i right?
acceptanceisbliss 2 years ago
I just don't see the connection between divine-push, and divine-intervention and worship! There's no need for worship/fear/hate/sin/preaching etc. if you believe the divine is the push and the rest just the work unraveling, well then the divine just really does not care about you at all! However, i would still like you to tell me where the need for worship comes from and would still like you to answer my previous question about the magic-god, because i truly am curious! And no bible quotes pls.
acceptanceisbliss 2 years ago
adaptation over time is evolution...and how can you say that biblical teachings and scientific discoveries support each other? when it in fact is the other way around. there are tons of examples, just to take a few, mathew 4:8 says that the earth is flat,Deuteronomy 14:18 says that bats are unclean birds. and the bible suggests that the earth is around 6k year old. and there are alot more that are plain out wrong scientificly not to mention the moral standards....
ihaveseenyounaked 2 years ago
This proofs God is right. Genesis ch. 1 verse 24 says, Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God let all creatures evolve in what ever way they needed. The missing link from chimps to humans is God making us in His image.
eyofirsttrumpet 2 years ago
This proofs God is right. Genesis ch. 1 verse 24 says, Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God let all creatures evolve in what ever way they needed. The missing link from chimps to humans is God making us in His image.
eyofirsttrumpet 2 years ago
I never said "evolve fins" I said gills you seem to have a problem with misquoting. I may have misspoken by saying gills let me clarify. By the theory of evolution humans should have over "THOUSANDS" of years evolved a new respiratory process to prevent drowning." Once again no biologist here just my interpretation of what is being taught in the classes of "Higher Education".
sonarkicker55 2 years ago
Einstein's belief in a created universe does in NO way shape or form give proof to the creation of the universe by the same god that wrote the bible.
You, on the other hand, quoted the Genesis for the creation of whales and other such creatures. Einstein, i am convinced, would laugh at the face of anyone who disputes the legitimacy of the Evolutionary Theory and supports the replacement of it by the "genesis theory" of intelligent design. He did not believe in a PERSONAL god,
acceptanceisbliss 2 years ago
Once again i am in awe of your misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is not outcome-oriented. Genes do not mutate to produce a certain predetermined result. I can see how that would be a hard concept for you to grasp, since according to your beliefs god had a rough copy of everything he was going to create before doing so, but Evolution does not claim such omnipotence.
acceptanceisbliss 2 years ago
The theory states that in the events of mutations in the genes, only the genes of certain aptness to environment or outside influences will be strong enough to provide increased chance of survival, and therefore increased chance of reproduction. Therefore the genes will survive and over years may, or may not, dominate the offspring of said species, depending on how many further mutations may have occurred within that time.
acceptanceisbliss 2 years ago
However if you'd be so kind to explain to me why, even in your belief in the omniscient god, you so hardly cling to your "magician" god of *abracadabra*, instead of one that is intricate enough in his actions to be able to set something so complicated, as evolution, in action and create well-deserved awe, it'd be very appreciated. I, personally, have never understood why people would do such an insult to an "all powerful deity" to make him into such a trivial character.
acceptanceisbliss 2 years ago
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." Albert Einstein
sonarkicker55 2 years ago
Spinoza's god is in no way the same god as the god of the bible. In your case, i believe yours is not a misquotation, but a misunderstanding and misrepresentation altogether. But then again, that's just my opinion, you will MOST LIKELY disagree, and this would not surprise me. I only ask that you do not quote those who you do not fully understand as supporting your arguments and beliefs. No christian would, after all, reject the belief in a "Personal god" which Einstein blatantly did!
acceptanceisbliss 2 years ago
This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed.
sonarkicker55 2 years ago
Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists."
sonarkicker55 2 years ago
Secondly you have not thoroughly analyzed Einstein's statement and in putting down my point of view you have shown yourself to be SUCH a person. Religion is for each person to decide for themselves. However Einstein made several statements that showed he believed the universe was created.
sonarkicker55 2 years ago
First of all Biology is not my profession so I am no expert. However I have studied Anthropolgy, Biology and Astronomy a bit in school. I am not disputing the discoveries of science but the more I have studied the more I am convinced that there is a God or if that offends you a Creator. Nothing can come from nothing.
sonarkicker55 2 years ago
sweet video. RD is the best.
ngarbo00 2 years ago
You know what sonarkicker? Even religion evolves including having different versions of the Bible. Did Adam and Eve have a copy? That would be a first edition.
nasnema 2 years ago
Most people don't realise that lifeforms weren't always as complicated as they are today. All life evolved in partnership with others: each generation taking part in a kind of arms race between the species in order to survive and reproduce; only survivors reproduce, the product of this trial and error giving the complexity we see today, after millions of generations.
nasnema 2 years ago
He conducted an experiment towards a known objective kinda redundant and irrelevant if ya ask me. Like someone said before me "Do the fins reproduce yet?"
sonarkicker55 2 years ago
sonarkicker55 evolution takes millions of years, not a few seconds.
jayangie69 2 years ago
I fail to see how a video showing something being CREATED disproves the theory of CREATION nothing in that project happened by chance.
The video shows how complex it is to create machinery and how much testing goes into it.
sonarkicker55 2 years ago
you clearly arent intelligent enough to be privileged with being able to access this information. crawl back into your cave and enjoy your life in the dark ages, its where religion belongs.
blackbeltste 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Consider how difficult it would be for something as complex as the human body with its own reproduction and immunity processes to evolve by chance.
By evolution logics if I am drowning my body should evolve or adapt to receive more oxygen ie...gills but humans drown everyday and have no gills.
sonarkicker55 2 years ago
gills cannot absorb O2 in a non hydrate environment retard therefore lung would be evolved..... religion defense FAIL
17xbox17 2 years ago
The simple fact that you think we can "evolve fins" during the 3-4 minutes it might take you to drown shows me how little knowledge you have of the process of evolution. You are ignorant of its theory and still claim to "know" it's wrong. There IS an evolutionary step that makes us different then our ancestors, it's the fact that although most of the time our breathing is an involuntary process, we have learned to control it. Therefore we do not inhale water the minute our heads go under.
acceptanceisbliss 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The answer is found in the first chapter of the first book of the bible
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:21 KJV)
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
sonarkicker55 2 years ago
"I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the worlds, insofar as it allows our inadequate sense to appreciate it."
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
acceptanceisbliss 2 years ago
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it" Albert Einstein
Let's not put words into the mouths of those who are no longer with us and unable to defend themselves shall we? It is the practice of immoral and unethical techniques to debate the acceptability of a certain point of view. I am certain u would never want to be seen as SUCH a person, i am convinced u were just misinformed!
acceptanceisbliss 2 years ago
4:11
What is the evidence that path blood vesicles follow in dogs as they grow is caused by evolution? Typical Delusional blabber from Dawkins, a theologian in science.
The path blood vesicles follow as they grow is not programed, but a response relayed by messenger proteins called VEGFA and their density determines blood vesicle growth on demand as endothelial progenitor cells grow and branch using VEGFR1 and VEGFR2. It's a modified quarum sensing systems inherited from microbes.
abram730 2 years ago
By evolution I specifically mean Evolution from natural selection as is often the only Evolution argument Dawkins considers. The simple concept of an animal breeder and reality bent beond recognition in attempt to fit a mind that only can consider one concept.
abram730 2 years ago
to give*
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
what is this shit
imafuckwit1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow this video convinced me there is actually a designer in nature the way the computer was designed. Dawkins should stop cowering in debates. Perhaps he knew he will be eaten alive like what happend in the Hitchens vs Craig debate.
mavrickiii 2 years ago
mavrickiii you're a dope, dawkins has better stuff to do then go arournd debating some prick about morality. craig hasn't even offered up anything that constitutes a debate. if there's no god there is no morality or purpose in life isn't a debate it's his opinion. and all it proves is that if for sure no god existed we would just make one up to giving meaning to a life for sheep like you.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago 2
Can the fins reproduce yet?
ussick 2 years ago
This video is great!
chadaniels 2 years ago
What's that video to do with the title?
equitably 2 years ago
Read Dawkins' book: "The Blind Watchmaker", and it will be clear.
Meanwhile, are you aware of Paley, the 19th century philosopher who famously referred to the need for a "designed" watch to have a "designer"?
tripleVeeVee 2 years ago
For the first time I wanted to press the fifth star many times.
hoplahey 3 years ago
I love dawkins!! I have actually written some of these programs in my freshman engineering classes. People don't realize how mush we use this in the aircraft engineering field.
CBUEngineer 3 years ago 3
The very fabric of modern society has been reliant upon evolutionarily evolved technologies since the 1970's or so, but - to hear creationists - Darwin, Sagan, Dawkins, pretty much everyone is wrong. Of course they'll happily partake in the benefits of our technological society - thanks very much - they just don't see much need for it - If there is a more short-sighted, ideologically impaired & self-serving bunch out there I'm not sure who they are.
proadmin1 2 years ago 2
Wow! Amazing!
Cerberus889 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hmm, neat experiments. All done by...(gasp) intelligent designers!
They got the results they wanted. But nature never produces anything more complex than the DNA code of information in each organism. Each organism has its limits and they won't exceed those limits...not without intelligent outside help.
Kirkwhisper 3 years ago
The stupidity continues. I can just as easily say that this proves that there must have been evolution to have evolved the person who made the program and that therefore just the producing of the program proves the reality of evolution. But I'm not that stupid.
DiggityDogg56 3 years ago 3
It's analogous to "the designer" creating the earth in anticipation of life forming on it and evolving into what we know. It's not a bad idea, there's only so much about the earth's formation we can know, but it's no better than any other.
I suppose you have me on the arbitrary limits imposed on nature. If we could just get past those somehow. It's actually ironic, as a result of out intellect I don't think we'll be able to evolve much further. We'll never be open to selective breeding, etc.
chinesemonk 3 years ago
intelligent outside help. ?
Who is more intelligent than humans?
NO ONE!
imaginary characters do not count.
youcancallmedavid 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"imaginary characters do not count."
That means that you don't count. I have far more evidence that God exists than I have that you exist.
Kirkwhisper 3 years ago
You're right grandpa..., now it's time to take your medication and watch a lil' Jeopardy :D
clarencew777 3 years ago
"That means that you don't count. I have far more evidence that God exists than I have that you exist."
No you don't. If you must lie to promote your faith, then your faith is worthless.
DaleHusband 3 years ago 4
get off the shrooms man
IricForset 3 years ago
never!!
philateliceun 3 years ago
sorry, do you have any direct evidence that such a being exists? or is this just something you have faith in?
dont answer this by the way, i wont read it.
spacecowboy95 3 years ago
Everyone should see this video!!!
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago
Some of the replies in this thread are mind-numbingly stupid.
Look guys evolution is a pretty simple concept when you get right down to but and attaching mysticism to the origins of man detracts from just how remarkable it is that such complex creatures arose from such a simple process being allowed to run for BILLIONS(life arouse ~3.5GYA geologically speaking this is very fast) of years.
God may have had a hand in guiding evolution but we did not come from Adam and Eve(who had two gay sons)
uscdave1124 3 years ago 5
Fantastic video.
cube11235 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
does any 1 know the falsification tests for the theory of evolution ???
im not asking to get in a debate so don't go thumbing me down
BismAllah99 3 years ago
Precambrian rabbits, or other proof of advanced forms living long before the simpler forms we believe they evolved from, or that all forms appeared at once.
A well tested theory that placed the age of the earth at less than 100 million years old.
truckerbomb1 3 years ago
Damn reply bug... Anyway.
If our theory of how DNA works was proved completely wrong and it was shown that no information is passed down from parents to child.
If comparisons of DNA showed that we shared more similarities with simple mammals like mice than we do with close relatives like chimpanzees.
These are all tests where the theory could have been broken completely.
truckerbomb1 3 years ago
If there were a trait that could not have evolved in any possible way
OsthatoCat 3 years ago
How are they "deluded"? Do they believe they have super powers? Do they believe that they are the design of a super being?
James Randi, many have tried for his challenge, and all have failed. Why? Because psychic powers is BULLSHIT.
sonic8005 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Looks like Evolution works with information off of information, and "knows" when it's hit the mark. Which would make evolution kind of smart. Kind of... Intelligent.
SeanR237 3 years ago
not really cause evoultion is a process, not an entity
canti1988 3 years ago 7
Is it just me or is Dawkins the sexiest scientist ever to evolve?
anishinaabe 3 years ago 5
I dunno... Susan Blackmore's pretty spunky. :D
UbiquitousChe 3 years ago
I prefer that Christmas Jones chick from that James bond movie. They just dont make sexy scientists in real life.
But thats why we have movies.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
I saw a hot Egyptologist on Craig Ferguson a few months back. I can't remember her name, though. I think she was there promoting a special on the Discovery Channel.
yahdeeblah 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
he's so damn sexy rite!...u might as well go suck his cock while your at it since hes so irresistibly sexy. hopefully u evolved a mouth with salivary glands to help u better accommodate this task. ill be on the look out next time he he's speaking at a conference, ill be sure to look for you just below the pulpit he speaks at :P
lilbobgottie69 3 years ago
I think "New international Version" might come up with the few hits. Its not the direct translation, but it's close enough to it.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
hehheh
QED.
BlastastiC 3 years ago
Wow. Old school. Still spot-on and thought-provoking. I love Dawkins.
miseriaykretek 4 years ago
this guy says what i`ve always thougt.
peteq1972 4 years ago
how did the dog's intestine come to be in the first place?
the blades on that wing thing were created by the manufacturer, using his brain. how did his brain come to be?
it would be natural that those most well adapted to survive, would. but how did they come about in the first place?
jackmehoffer68 4 years ago
Yeah, right?
God created the world with his power.
But what created god?
"God" solves nothing.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 4 years ago
God said, let there be God! And then the lights went out. Then God said, let there be light. And then, after light was created again, God set forth to write the Bible. But then God remembered that the lights were on in the beginning-- even before he thought he created light. Then God was confused.
ghostofday 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
damn dude read ur bible....
ismailsheri911 3 years ago
I have read the bible. And not just the King James version, but the gideons, the new international, and Oh yeah, the DIRECT TRANSLATION TO ENGLISH.
If you're still reading the KJV, then I feel compelled to tell you that the Lucifer's descent story that you believe is completely wrong, because of a simple (possibly intentional) mistranslation. "O Morning Star" (original translation) is not a term for "Lucifer" (KJV).
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
where did you find a direct translation?
AJ78910 3 years ago
Barns & Noble, I think. I dunno, my mom gave it to me for christmas. I'm sure oyu can look it up on the internet.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
i looked, i cant find it.
AJ78910 3 years ago
God solves everything, just ppl don't want to listen; and God would not be "god" if he is -created-.
sp00nyw0lf 3 years ago
"God solves everything, just ppl don't want to listen;"
Really? So can god create a slice of pizza so hot that it burns even the roof of HIS mouth?
"and God would not be "god" if he is -created-"
Thats not necessarily true. Perhaps he was created by another God, who felt it was time to hand over the reins?
You dont KNOW any of this. Mythology, and theology is NOTHING but speculation.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago 3
"Really? So can god create a slice of pizza so hot that it burns even the roof of HIS mouth?"
-erm do i need to notice how that question sounds incredible retarded?
Almost same as "scientist's" SPECULATION about evolution.
"and God would not be "god" if he is -created-" that s what i said, then u answered: "Thats not necessarily true."
-Oh yes IT IS NECESSERILY TRUE cuz Lord said: "I am only God, don't have any other gods exept me!" (thats my free translation cuz i dont have english bible)
sp00nyw0lf 3 years ago
"-erm do i need to notice how that question sounds incredible retarded?"
Alright, if that's not cryptic enough for you "Can god create a stone so large that even he cannot lift it?"
"Oh yes IT IS NECESSERILY TRUE cuz Lord said: "I am only God, don't have any other gods exept me!" (thats my free translation cuz i dont have english bible) "
And Hitler said "I'm really a nice guy!"
Dont use the fucking bible to prove the fucking bible.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago 3
"Almost same as "scientist's" SPECULATION about evolution."
Um, no, thats not true at all. Mythology and theology has no experimental testing, so it is NOTHING BUT SPECULATION. Its not based off of anything that can be seen in the known world.
Evolution actually has FACTS behind it. Your beliefs have nothing but stories passed down in the oral tradition for 500 years before they were even written down.
Have you ever played the "Telephone" game?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
have u ever heared for History and Archeology? O.o
as i can see u DON'T WANT to see any evidence about christian religion, probably u did never even tryied to study them (probably cuz your own , personal prejudiced opinions)... but u r ready to spit as every other atheistic narow minded satan cultist, right!?
If u conntinue to talk with that attitude with me WeedGrenPowerRanger u can freely back off, cuz you seems to be pretty ignorant and proud person, and i really dont need that crap.
sp00nyw0lf 3 years ago
"as i can see u DON'T WANT to see any evidence about christian religion probably u did never even tryied to study them (probably cuz your own , personal prejudiced opinions)"
No, son, I know more than you do about your own religion, I'm sure, seeing as you're probably reading and believing in the KJV (totally flawed). My point is that the so called "evidence" you speak of doesnt exist in the empirical sense. Your god is no more valid a hypothesis than the dung beetle pushing the sun in the sky.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago 6
the feeling of burning or burning in a reaction sense because in theory God could do both but why would God want to when burning hurts? God created everything according to the bible so you could say that anyone's mouth that gets burned from eating a hot slice of pizza is the same as God's mouth being burnt b/c he created it
deathsminion25 3 years ago
I know the pizza one's a bad analogy, but I was going for humor, and I really wanted to see if anyone would answer it. Read the reply I made to him for the actual paradoxical question.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
Or can God cut a fart that is so immense that he dies of methane poisoning??
anishinaabe 3 years ago 5
lol
ThetaOmega 3 years ago
You have no idea what
"Evolution by natural selection" is and how
it works over billions of years.
Just watch some "Carl Sagan" videos on YouTube to atleast get some basic knowledge.
Get some knowledge on Evolution before putting up idiotic questions!
caseran 4 years ago
smarthandsomeguy I've posted my last response. This really pointless since your blind faith in evolution resists all reasonable argument. I will not even be responding to your response to this comment.
thethikboy 4 years ago
>"blind faith in evolution"
I pointed you to sources which would allow you to write a program that shows the priciple of evo in all it's glory. I have no faith whtsoever in the principle of evo.
talkorigins . org/faqs/comdesc/section4 . html
Read that and ask again: Does it require faith to conclude common ancestry, or does it take faith to deny it?
Denying that GAs work, is like saying:
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion - a joke, not a scientific statement.
smarthandsomeguy 4 years ago
Parts of a more complex body-object didn't necessarily have the same funcion before. Parts have evolved from different functions. Read more...
tomaselvis 4 years ago
Not sure what point you're making.
thethikboy 4 years ago