How does " natural selection" factor work in the program ? I think as a mutation would occur, natural selection factor has to be made by "intellectual " affirmation so that such mutation would be adapted for the next generation, otherwise if it had not received positive affirmation from " consumers", the mutation would fade. Affirmation from consumers can be done by the participation of end users for the program. Hmmm, am i missing how the program was made ?
... and again what you try to make of it is that its simple organisms> *WHAM* humans... no. Take into account that this earth is 4.5 BILLION years old and that for at least 3.5 billion years life has been around. This gives it ample time to evolve, and it has.
Faith in my eyes, is a silly concept, and I don't take things on faith.
2. You say the universe popped into the existence "out of nowhere". Clearly this shows, again, how little you know about what we know of the beginning of the universe. I'm sorry but no scientist will EVER say the universe "popped into existance out of nothing", that's what you make of it.
3. Mutation is a part in the evolutionary process, so it's not "mutation and evolution" it's just evolution. Pond scum seems to demean it but yes, simple organisms turned into more complex organisms. [cont.]
There are several points: 1. You do not understand what atheism is. Atheism is a matter of not believing, it has no doctrine, and it cannot by defenition be a religion. I don't even know how to respond to your political arm argument, other then that it's absurd. Scientists being "high priests"? Without these scientists we'd still be in the dark ages, so a little respect is in order... [cont.]
Second if THAT was "thesame crap" then go read the MILLION responses people already made to your question... now who's moving hurdles? Stop parroting your creationist protagonists.
And again you ask the wrong question. Everything happened clearly as it has, else we were not here, and it doesn't need to have a reason. If you want to boil this down to that all this had to have a beginning [and preferrably intelligent] we can just continue from there.
If you really want to see a computerised model of evolution check out cdk007's "Why Intelligent Design is Wrong, part I". Remember, the goal is set by the environment and humans clicking ads IS NOT natural selection...
Yes, I saw that, and I saw some problems with his model. But everything is how you percieve things. So I can totally understand your point of view. I hope your model of life gives you all the happiness in the world. Take care.
No this is how it is, it is not perceived it is just a wrong comparison between evolution and something that only looks similar but isn't thesame at all. If you perceive this model as a reflection of the real evolution your perception is just distorted. That's not my opinion it is just a plain fact... Look evolution directly doesn't give me happiness, that is determined by other things, but the constant attacks toward scientific facts sure make me unhappy...
If you watch, the goal was to write a better ad. And he showed how you could put it on the internet and track people's clicks on the ad. So of course the ones that would get the clicks would survive, and those that did not would fail. That was the goal. . .it's difficult to grasp the concept unless you watch the entire series.
I grasp the concept. The clicked ads survive and I guess don't evolve because they are fit to survive since they are comprehensable. The ads that get few clicks will evolve letters to see if it attracts more people then... Well, this is very subject to interests of people, but it still isn't correct because indeed as he says evolution doesn't follow the rules of english language but of nature... letters aren't natural they are manmade...
True, but are the rules of nature more or less tolerate than those of the english language? Especially since a DNA strand is considerably longer than that of a standard ad?
You cannot compare the English language and a DNA strand, but I would say the english language to be less tolerant... The rules of nature are without mercy, but a person with an extra toe will survive... when "word" turns into "ward" it becomes entirely different, this is not thesame with DNA. This guy is comparing cows with horses. Realise that and this video becomes totally nonsense...
Matter violates an energy law? Help me to understand. Also have you heard of modulation? If you were to play a modulated signal without demodulating the signal it would just be noise. A radio demodulates the modulated signal to get the audio signal. What about Speciation, extinction, genetic drift, gene flow. Evolution is not random. Altering Chromosomes but not the DNA, explain that to me.
He's not arguing against evolution, per se. He's giving his hypothesis for an intelligent process for evolution.
Darwinian evolution can be broken down to three basic components. Random mutation, natural selection, and time. It's the "random mutation" part that is the most controversal part of the equation.
It's going to take an open mind, and a larger reality perspective to get it. He does have a very interesting case if you watch the entire series.
He is going after an idea of evolution that was proven wrong, and proposing an alternative to the idea that was proven wrong before he started. We have included the following since the times of just mutation and natural selection. Speciation, extension, genetic dirt, gene flow, allelic frequency and anything I might have forgotten.
Words evolving is bullocks because the words are not evolving to suit their environment. What is the purpose of the word evolving if the evolved word after so many generations is uncomprehensable. Nothing is dictating the evolution of the words so they evolve random and stay that way, lol this video does not at all make sense
I don't see his point about adding noise to a signal. In digital communications noise is useful for generating meaningful information. i.e. When you talk into your cell phone, your voice is analyzed and converted into a set of filters. The filters are transmitted to the other cell phone. The receiving cell phone uses a random number generator to create white noise which is blasted through the received filters. The resulting filtered noise sounds like intelligable... (more)
... speech. Now, evolution also claims to harness the "noise" of mutations in the same way. Mutations undirected are useless, but in biology they are filtered through natural selection.
Again, his analogy is poor.
Also the way he uses Shannon Information is goofy. Noise isn't information entropy; it would be more accurate to say that noise is highly entropic because it's unpredictable. This fact makes noise a good source of new patterns.
Well, the first part of this video is basicaly a strawman. I see his point that random mutations make English less intelligable, but the grammer of English is much more strict than the "grammer" of DNA & genes. IOW, the fitness space of protiens is smoother than that of English. You can swap out some amino acids with no affect protien behavior. Other changes may only cause slight changes in the structure. It's not as dichotamous as in English.
"You can swap out some amino acids with no affect protien behavior."
Can you show me your source for this, because he starts to cover transposition in this part at the end. But it's really covered in part three. So can you ellaborate your point please.
Opposition, denial, indifference, then acceptance, and advocation. This is the typical course of action when enough time passes to show that many scientific ideas not compatible with scripture become undeniable. From the Earth revolving around the sun, the expansion of universe, to communicable disease being caused by micro-organism and even evolution, theists typically follow this pattern mentioned and just add "God is behind it" after having denied and rejected science theories for so long.
Hmm wait, so this isn't a creationist video? I kind of jumped to conclusions when I saw the word "evolution" and claims that some non-scientifically accepted process is responsible. But it's still non-supernatural evolution. So is this just some non-creationist fringe theory? I'm confused.
lol the "FACT" of evolution is the process by which species adapt due to natural selection and mutations.. the part creationists disagree with is that this can account for modern life. Arguing that the FACT is impossible is like proving you didn't arson your house by saying "fire doesn't exist". This video argues against the FACTS, IE, that the process of "evolution" exists and is directly observable. Oh brother. :/
I understand you are stuck in your belief system and belief systems block learning, but if you watched the whole series it does not state that evolution doesn't happen. It explains that's it's a built in part of the software that is DNA.
No; it claims that mutation can not create order. We know this is false as it is directly observable. Not just in microbes, but there have been experiments in which fruit flies are seperated until they become 2 species, no longer able to interbreed. Snakes gain smaller mouths when poison toads are introduced, because the snakes with large mouths eat the toads and die. The toads gain longer legs because those with shorter legs can't spread as fast. The FACT of evolution is directly observable.
Well what you are talking about is a change in evironment, caused stress to the animal. . .which in turn caused the animal to adapt. Which again is mentioned in this video if you watched it until conclusion (Along with the DNA and the Genetic Code series). You are saying it's blind luck that some random mutation is causing a benificial result. I find that pretty convenient for the animal. . .and based on Information theory, really makes no logical sense.
Oh, so it's not proposing the already crazy idea by creationists that evolution by mutation can only go so far, but a completely new idea which has nothing to do with actual science and I assume with no attempt made for proponents of this theory to be active in the scientific community.. have fun with that.
Well since the current idea is "random mutation" which is therefore not repeatable. . .I would say our current consensus on evolution is equally unscientific.
How is it not repeatable - every living thing on Earth is mutated from it's parents. That's as repeatable as you can get. Claims based on a conclusion you started with, which can not be tested or falsified, are not scientific in the slightest. This video argues against a non-existant evolution claim, and like most (all?) creationist videos, demonstrates COMPLETE lack of understanding of evolution. Ignorance of evolution is not an argument against it.
"Random mutation" is exactly that, random. And thus it's not repeatable.
"every living thing on Earth is mutated from it's parents."
No, it's transmitting it's data to it's prodigy. If you get an immunity to something, that information is learned and embedded into the DNA. . .that's not random, that's learned. And that learned data is passed on.
Yes, the information is passed on, imperfectly. It's called mutation and it is a basic principle of biology. If I'm correct you're claiming that mutations are only positive, which is funny because the "standard" made up creationist claim is that they are always negative. I was unaware that this video was denying the very existance of MUTATIONS, which is akin to denying gravity or the shape of the Earth. It is so BASIC, and so undisputed by the scientific community, that arguing is pointless.
"If I'm correct you're claiming that mutations are only positive"
Nope, I never said that and the videos don't say that either. "Random mutations" are always negative because that is information entropy. The changes in evolution comes from evironmental pressures that forces the organisms to splice and rearrange it's own DNA in a benificial way. This has been studied by James A. Shapiro and is discussed in part 3.
Ah so there are negative mutations, and positive mutations, and the negative ones are random, BUT! the positive ones are non-random. Interesting hypothesis. But.. there is no confusion in the scientific community as to how mutations occur. The scientific process exists for a reason - to weed out pseudo-science. If this hyothesis is truely scientific, the proponents are welcome to submit their studies to the scientific community, instead of preaching to the ignorant public.
There is no goal in evolution, each lifeform lives for the moment it has no concept of reaching a point where it can say "I made it".
The Wright brothers were not building a stealth bomber when they achieved powered flight yet this was achieved in small stages based on the previous design!
The separation of fruit fly species was achieved by differing the food until the 2 were incompatible to mate!
extinction is where the so called missing links are found!
"The separation of fruit fly species was achieved by differing the food until the 2 were incompatible to mate!"
Exactly, the different evironmental stresses of the two groups of fruit flies caused the animal to adapt. Nobody is arguing that point in this video. The point is that DNA is a learning program and adjusts itself accordingly. It is not random blind luck from copying errors. It's mentioned fully in this video if you watch the entire series.
"Stresses" them? And the fruit flies know exactly what the cause of stress is, and how to fix it? So if you put some snakes in a tank in poisonous frogs, and the snakes with the largest mouths eat the frogs and die, than the remaining snakes with smaller mouths will "know" that their DNA should provide for smaller mouths? (even though it ALREADY will) This is a VERY round-about and overly complicated process.
Perry Marshall is one of my favorites. I even read the topic over at the Atheist forum (I forget the name of it) where it was basically him vs around 60 atheists, and he thoroughly handled them via scientific facts, and he was extremely polite while doing so. It was hilarious to watch how hostile they became once they realized this one man had single-handedly defeated all of them.
To me it wasn't too surprising that the atheists on the forum resulted to some illogical statements like, gravity is a code, because they are stuck in a belief system. And unfortunately belief systems block your ability to learn. For example, this evidence clearly points to an Intelligent Designer, but many people will then pick up their bible and say, "see I told you so!" Well, next you have to draw a line from the Designer to the bible, and that hasn't been established.
I ellaborated my point with that in another video "The Bible and Filtered Information."
But I think it's going to take a lot to change the thinking of our society. We are VERY material based beings, and in order for us to evolve we are going to have to get over that. Take care.
There are so many things wrong with this, only an idiot would believe it.
First, scrambling letters at random in a document is not nearly the same as gene mutations and natural selection. There's the fact that the scrambling was done deliberately to distort/remove the meaning of words, and the fact that there's no natural selection in this process, thus no deletion of what becomes irrelevant code unfit for survival. It's just fucking words that one person distors, either deliberately or not.
How does " natural selection" factor work in the program ? I think as a mutation would occur, natural selection factor has to be made by "intellectual " affirmation so that such mutation would be adapted for the next generation, otherwise if it had not received positive affirmation from " consumers", the mutation would fade. Affirmation from consumers can be done by the participation of end users for the program. Hmmm, am i missing how the program was made ?
09205479428 1 year ago
... and again what you try to make of it is that its simple organisms> *WHAM* humans... no. Take into account that this earth is 4.5 BILLION years old and that for at least 3.5 billion years life has been around. This gives it ample time to evolve, and it has.
Faith in my eyes, is a silly concept, and I don't take things on faith.
Subher0 2 years ago
2. You say the universe popped into the existence "out of nowhere". Clearly this shows, again, how little you know about what we know of the beginning of the universe. I'm sorry but no scientist will EVER say the universe "popped into existance out of nothing", that's what you make of it.
3. Mutation is a part in the evolutionary process, so it's not "mutation and evolution" it's just evolution. Pond scum seems to demean it but yes, simple organisms turned into more complex organisms. [cont.]
Subher0 2 years ago
There are several points: 1. You do not understand what atheism is. Atheism is a matter of not believing, it has no doctrine, and it cannot by defenition be a religion. I don't even know how to respond to your political arm argument, other then that it's absurd. Scientists being "high priests"? Without these scientists we'd still be in the dark ages, so a little respect is in order... [cont.]
Subher0 2 years ago
First off atheism is not a religion.
Second if THAT was "thesame crap" then go read the MILLION responses people already made to your question... now who's moving hurdles? Stop parroting your creationist protagonists.
And again you ask the wrong question. Everything happened clearly as it has, else we were not here, and it doesn't need to have a reason. If you want to boil this down to that all this had to have a beginning [and preferrably intelligent] we can just continue from there.
Subher0 2 years ago
Learn what natural selection is and mutation before you ask questions showing how unknowledgeable you are on the subjects.
Then return with fresh questions.
[tip: read from wikipedia or talkorigins 'dot' org and not only religious sources]
Subher0 2 years ago
Nobody did. Why do you assume there is a "who"?
Subher0 2 years ago
BTW He's only using random mutation but random mutation alone is not good enough you need natural selection, mutation and reproduction...
Subher0 3 years ago
If you really want to see a computerised model of evolution check out cdk007's "Why Intelligent Design is Wrong, part I". Remember, the goal is set by the environment and humans clicking ads IS NOT natural selection...
Subher0 3 years ago
Yes, I saw that, and I saw some problems with his model. But everything is how you percieve things. So I can totally understand your point of view. I hope your model of life gives you all the happiness in the world. Take care.
tristenmc 3 years ago
No this is how it is, it is not perceived it is just a wrong comparison between evolution and something that only looks similar but isn't thesame at all. If you perceive this model as a reflection of the real evolution your perception is just distorted. That's not my opinion it is just a plain fact... Look evolution directly doesn't give me happiness, that is determined by other things, but the constant attacks toward scientific facts sure make me unhappy...
Subher0 3 years ago
He says there is a goal... he clearly set no goal for his words to go to.
Subher0 3 years ago
If you watch, the goal was to write a better ad. And he showed how you could put it on the internet and track people's clicks on the ad. So of course the ones that would get the clicks would survive, and those that did not would fail. That was the goal. . .it's difficult to grasp the concept unless you watch the entire series.
tristenmc 3 years ago
I grasp the concept. The clicked ads survive and I guess don't evolve because they are fit to survive since they are comprehensable. The ads that get few clicks will evolve letters to see if it attracts more people then... Well, this is very subject to interests of people, but it still isn't correct because indeed as he says evolution doesn't follow the rules of english language but of nature... letters aren't natural they are manmade...
Subher0 3 years ago
True, but are the rules of nature more or less tolerate than those of the english language? Especially since a DNA strand is considerably longer than that of a standard ad?
tristenmc 3 years ago
You cannot compare the English language and a DNA strand, but I would say the english language to be less tolerant... The rules of nature are without mercy, but a person with an extra toe will survive... when "word" turns into "ward" it becomes entirely different, this is not thesame with DNA. This guy is comparing cows with horses. Realise that and this video becomes totally nonsense...
Subher0 3 years ago
Matter violates an energy law? Help me to understand. Also have you heard of modulation? If you were to play a modulated signal without demodulating the signal it would just be noise. A radio demodulates the modulated signal to get the audio signal. What about Speciation, extinction, genetic drift, gene flow. Evolution is not random. Altering Chromosomes but not the DNA, explain that to me.
donnieharrison2 3 years ago
He's not arguing against evolution, per se. He's giving his hypothesis for an intelligent process for evolution.
Darwinian evolution can be broken down to three basic components. Random mutation, natural selection, and time. It's the "random mutation" part that is the most controversal part of the equation.
It's going to take an open mind, and a larger reality perspective to get it. He does have a very interesting case if you watch the entire series.
tristenmc 3 years ago
He is going after an idea of evolution that was proven wrong, and proposing an alternative to the idea that was proven wrong before he started. We have included the following since the times of just mutation and natural selection. Speciation, extension, genetic dirt, gene flow, allelic frequency and anything I might have forgotten.
donnieharrison2 3 years ago
If you can show me your sources, that suggest that this idea is not viable, I would love to see it.
tristenmc 3 years ago
Words evolving is bullocks because the words are not evolving to suit their environment. What is the purpose of the word evolving if the evolved word after so many generations is uncomprehensable. Nothing is dictating the evolution of the words so they evolve random and stay that way, lol this video does not at all make sense
Subher0 3 years ago
@5:00...
I don't see his point about adding noise to a signal. In digital communications noise is useful for generating meaningful information. i.e. When you talk into your cell phone, your voice is analyzed and converted into a set of filters. The filters are transmitted to the other cell phone. The receiving cell phone uses a random number generator to create white noise which is blasted through the received filters. The resulting filtered noise sounds like intelligable... (more)
urbanelf 3 years ago
... speech. Now, evolution also claims to harness the "noise" of mutations in the same way. Mutations undirected are useless, but in biology they are filtered through natural selection.
Again, his analogy is poor.
Also the way he uses Shannon Information is goofy. Noise isn't information entropy; it would be more accurate to say that noise is highly entropic because it's unpredictable. This fact makes noise a good source of new patterns.
urbanelf 3 years ago
Well, the first part of this video is basicaly a strawman. I see his point that random mutations make English less intelligable, but the grammer of English is much more strict than the "grammer" of DNA & genes. IOW, the fitness space of protiens is smoother than that of English. You can swap out some amino acids with no affect protien behavior. Other changes may only cause slight changes in the structure. It's not as dichotamous as in English.
Basically, it's a bad analogy.
urbanelf 3 years ago
"You can swap out some amino acids with no affect protien behavior."
Can you show me your source for this, because he starts to cover transposition in this part at the end. But it's really covered in part three. So can you ellaborate your point please.
tristenmc 3 years ago
Opposition, denial, indifference, then acceptance, and advocation. This is the typical course of action when enough time passes to show that many scientific ideas not compatible with scripture become undeniable. From the Earth revolving around the sun, the expansion of universe, to communicable disease being caused by micro-organism and even evolution, theists typically follow this pattern mentioned and just add "God is behind it" after having denied and rejected science theories for so long.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
I have no scripture per se. I suppose I'm closest to Buddhist. So I don't think that applies to me.
tristenmc 3 years ago
A buddhist, with a computer?
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
Well like I said, I am not exactly Buddhist. But if I had to pick a specific religion, that's what it would be.
If you're interested in looking into Buddhism though, I would check out GeraldP1983's vids. There are very good.
tristenmc 3 years ago
Hmm wait, so this isn't a creationist video? I kind of jumped to conclusions when I saw the word "evolution" and claims that some non-scientifically accepted process is responsible. But it's still non-supernatural evolution. So is this just some non-creationist fringe theory? I'm confused.
Flyborg 3 years ago
lol the "FACT" of evolution is the process by which species adapt due to natural selection and mutations.. the part creationists disagree with is that this can account for modern life. Arguing that the FACT is impossible is like proving you didn't arson your house by saying "fire doesn't exist". This video argues against the FACTS, IE, that the process of "evolution" exists and is directly observable. Oh brother. :/
Flyborg 3 years ago
I understand you are stuck in your belief system and belief systems block learning, but if you watched the whole series it does not state that evolution doesn't happen. It explains that's it's a built in part of the software that is DNA.
tristenmc 3 years ago
No; it claims that mutation can not create order. We know this is false as it is directly observable. Not just in microbes, but there have been experiments in which fruit flies are seperated until they become 2 species, no longer able to interbreed. Snakes gain smaller mouths when poison toads are introduced, because the snakes with large mouths eat the toads and die. The toads gain longer legs because those with shorter legs can't spread as fast. The FACT of evolution is directly observable.
Flyborg 3 years ago
Well what you are talking about is a change in evironment, caused stress to the animal. . .which in turn caused the animal to adapt. Which again is mentioned in this video if you watched it until conclusion (Along with the DNA and the Genetic Code series). You are saying it's blind luck that some random mutation is causing a benificial result. I find that pretty convenient for the animal. . .and based on Information theory, really makes no logical sense.
tristenmc 3 years ago
Oh, so it's not proposing the already crazy idea by creationists that evolution by mutation can only go so far, but a completely new idea which has nothing to do with actual science and I assume with no attempt made for proponents of this theory to be active in the scientific community.. have fun with that.
Flyborg 3 years ago
Well since the current idea is "random mutation" which is therefore not repeatable. . .I would say our current consensus on evolution is equally unscientific.
tristenmc 3 years ago
How is it not repeatable - every living thing on Earth is mutated from it's parents. That's as repeatable as you can get. Claims based on a conclusion you started with, which can not be tested or falsified, are not scientific in the slightest. This video argues against a non-existant evolution claim, and like most (all?) creationist videos, demonstrates COMPLETE lack of understanding of evolution. Ignorance of evolution is not an argument against it.
Flyborg 3 years ago
"How is it not repeatable"
"Random mutation" is exactly that, random. And thus it's not repeatable.
"every living thing on Earth is mutated from it's parents."
No, it's transmitting it's data to it's prodigy. If you get an immunity to something, that information is learned and embedded into the DNA. . .that's not random, that's learned. And that learned data is passed on.
tristenmc 3 years ago
Yes, the information is passed on, imperfectly. It's called mutation and it is a basic principle of biology. If I'm correct you're claiming that mutations are only positive, which is funny because the "standard" made up creationist claim is that they are always negative. I was unaware that this video was denying the very existance of MUTATIONS, which is akin to denying gravity or the shape of the Earth. It is so BASIC, and so undisputed by the scientific community, that arguing is pointless.
Flyborg 3 years ago
"If I'm correct you're claiming that mutations are only positive"
Nope, I never said that and the videos don't say that either. "Random mutations" are always negative because that is information entropy. The changes in evolution comes from evironmental pressures that forces the organisms to splice and rearrange it's own DNA in a benificial way. This has been studied by James A. Shapiro and is discussed in part 3.
tristenmc 3 years ago
Ah so there are negative mutations, and positive mutations, and the negative ones are random, BUT! the positive ones are non-random. Interesting hypothesis. But.. there is no confusion in the scientific community as to how mutations occur. The scientific process exists for a reason - to weed out pseudo-science. If this hyothesis is truely scientific, the proponents are welcome to submit their studies to the scientific community, instead of preaching to the ignorant public.
Flyborg 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ok, take care.
tristenmc 3 years ago
There is no goal in evolution, each lifeform lives for the moment it has no concept of reaching a point where it can say "I made it".
The Wright brothers were not building a stealth bomber when they achieved powered flight yet this was achieved in small stages based on the previous design!
The separation of fruit fly species was achieved by differing the food until the 2 were incompatible to mate!
extinction is where the so called missing links are found!
Darwinsgift 3 years ago
"The separation of fruit fly species was achieved by differing the food until the 2 were incompatible to mate!"
Exactly, the different evironmental stresses of the two groups of fruit flies caused the animal to adapt. Nobody is arguing that point in this video. The point is that DNA is a learning program and adjusts itself accordingly. It is not random blind luck from copying errors. It's mentioned fully in this video if you watch the entire series.
tristenmc 3 years ago
"Stresses" them? And the fruit flies know exactly what the cause of stress is, and how to fix it? So if you put some snakes in a tank in poisonous frogs, and the snakes with the largest mouths eat the frogs and die, than the remaining snakes with smaller mouths will "know" that their DNA should provide for smaller mouths? (even though it ALREADY will) This is a VERY round-about and overly complicated process.
Flyborg 3 years ago
Perry Marshall is one of my favorites. I even read the topic over at the Atheist forum (I forget the name of it) where it was basically him vs around 60 atheists, and he thoroughly handled them via scientific facts, and he was extremely polite while doing so. It was hilarious to watch how hostile they became once they realized this one man had single-handedly defeated all of them.
TheJaredJammer 3 years ago
To me it wasn't too surprising that the atheists on the forum resulted to some illogical statements like, gravity is a code, because they are stuck in a belief system. And unfortunately belief systems block your ability to learn. For example, this evidence clearly points to an Intelligent Designer, but many people will then pick up their bible and say, "see I told you so!" Well, next you have to draw a line from the Designer to the bible, and that hasn't been established.
tristenmc 3 years ago
I ellaborated my point with that in another video "The Bible and Filtered Information."
But I think it's going to take a lot to change the thinking of our society. We are VERY material based beings, and in order for us to evolve we are going to have to get over that. Take care.
tristenmc 3 years ago
And regarding the fruit fly, it's really quite simple:
SPEEDING UP THE GENE MUTATION WITH RADIATION IN A LAB IS NOT NATURAL!
PhantoLibre 3 years ago
Sorry this video upset you so much. Take care.
tristenmc 3 years ago
There are so many things wrong with this, only an idiot would believe it.
First, scrambling letters at random in a document is not nearly the same as gene mutations and natural selection. There's the fact that the scrambling was done deliberately to distort/remove the meaning of words, and the fact that there's no natural selection in this process, thus no deletion of what becomes irrelevant code unfit for survival. It's just fucking words that one person distors, either deliberately or not.
PhantoLibre 3 years ago
This is really interesting, keep them up!
GeraldP1983 3 years ago