The first actor is Hal Holbrook, rather a good actor actually and he didn't play the mayor in Jaws. That was Murry Hamilton. Not to qibble as I love your videos!
0:56 "Eventually we'd get a better ad". I love that example! If you could define a fitness function for what constitutes a good ad (which would very hard to do since that's essentially a Natural Language Processing problem) then what he's describing is almost sort of like genetic programming. :)
@Tareltonlives Exactly, it is such a simple self-evident concept, there stupid fundamentalist religious views however blind them from what is so easy to understand.
Seeing Hal Holbrook in this makes me very sad. He was such a great Mark Twain. Guess he should have learned from his performance in Magnum Force... a man's got to know his limitations.
@IoEstasCedonta Depends on how you define natural selection. Natural selection in the sense that a population that already exists, having some advantage over another existing population, over enough time will begin to stand out and replace the other population, yes. Natural selection in the sense that a single expressed mutation will pop up with a significant benefit and replace the others? Not that I'm aware of.
@IoEstasCedonta I suppose not, but you're the one who brought the issue up. That's possible I suppose, but because that is the required mechanism for evolutionary history to work at all you would think it would be out in the open more as opposed to subtly hidden away in the research.
@Sickopath333 While you may have thought I brought it up, I brought up natural selection only to point out potholer's gripe was with these specific analogies, not analogies in general.
The reason it's not "out in the open more" is that information theory as pertains to biological evolution is much more technical than most creationists think. I'll go into it if you really want, but it's a bit much for 500 characters.
@IoEstasCedonta I didn't think you brought it up, you did bring it up by asking a question about it (with no indication that you didn't want me to answer said question).
Not really buying it, but I'll bite; feel free to just send me a message sometime if you care to describe it in your own words (or paraphrasing what not).
7:09 What the...? Why is half of Asia (especially Turkey and Iran) the same color as the Germanic-speaking countries in Europe and Africa? Why are the Slavic-speaking Baltic states, for that matter?
You know, just because I find the precept of this video funny I would love to see somebody doing the same thing here but with evolutionary authors and speakers (Richard Dawkins for ex.) and the analogies they use (Dawkins has one with weasels or something I think, I can't recall right now). I mean, since analogies are apparantly a bad thing we should mock, then we need to do the same thing when evolutionists employ them, right? It's like some evolutionists are hypocrites or something.
@Sickopath333 So what is that analogy with weasels, exactly? Does it ignore a key principle of what he's making an analogy for, one that's been observed throughout nature, like the casino and box ones do?
@Sickopath333 The problem is not that the use of analogies is bad, it's just that the use of *wrong* analogies are bad; such as those debunked here: At best they're strawmen, at worst outright deceitful. Why is Dawkins allegded weasel-analogy wrong?
@SuperShiningSun I can't remember what his analogy was called, so I don't remember exactly what it was or the issue with it. My main point was that I would just find it humorous to see a reply video to this one debunking analogies used by the heroes of potholer54's side. Essentially an advocate for one side is rarely a critic of that side.
@Sickopath333 >>I can't remember what his analogy was called, so I don't remember exactly what it was or the issue with it.<< Then I suggest you do the research and find out what the issue is, if there indeed is an issue, before you take the stage and demand that it be debunked. This is not a political debate, and you have to actually be demonstrably wrong before you can be debunked.
@uvauva2 I'll say there isn't such a thing as two sides... science supposedly welcomes criticism and scrutiny, but on this issue it's basically a crime to do so. Tells you a bit more about science then what the rosey-glasses would make you believe. There's the ideal form of science, and then there's the simple reality.
"but on this issue it's basically a crime to do so."
You should stop drinking all the propaganda you see.
Furthermore, if you actually think that the content addressed in this video classifies as "criticism" as opposed to willful stupidity, that says a lot about i) your (lack of) understanding of the concepts ii) your mathematical (in)ability.
In fact, here's a test: Potholer committed one (I would say rather serious) mathematical error in this video. Did you spot it?
@uvauva2 I'm referencing the concept in general, not particularly in this video. As you put it, there are either scientists (who agree with it) or idiots (who disagree with it). So, what I refute that with is by saying, you either have to agree with it (and be intelligent, whoo-hoo!) or critisize the precious theory and be an outcast (not how science should work).
There's one at the 3:00 mark; that isn't how probability works at all. It wouldn't just be 20 seconds at most.
"I'm referencing the concept in general, not particularly in this video."
Then maybe you should spell out "the concept".
"As you put it, there are either scientists (who agree with it) or idiots (who disagree with it)."
And I'll repeat it: If you think any of the criticisms addressed in this video have anything to them then yes, you are an idiot. The acceptance of criticism in science is no "all you can spew" buffet, which is what your phrasing suggests (...)
"There's one at the 3:00 mark; that isn't how probability works at all."
Nope. That's not it. It's true potholer's phrasing makes it strictly incorrect (and he addresses this in the video description), but everything around that point is still true if one takes the numbers to be the expected values of the random variables, which is what one really cares about. There's another (somewhat related) error which is harder to fix, while still relevant for the point he is making.
@uvauva2 Well I could watch the video looking for a similar mistake but I really don't care to. My point was not dealing with specifics it was dealing with generalities, so I'm just going to be lazy here.
Around 4:10. Correcting the estimated time for when the multiple machines would stop would require some pieces of math quite a bit beyond what potholer presents.
Excellent video - but (anticipating an objection) what about the non-advantageous and potentially harmful random gene mutations that get passed on and multiplied anyway?
@MrPianoJames But they do get passed on ... especially by human beings where money, power, intellectual brilliance, artistitic talent, character, and business success cover a multitude of genetic defects.
@nothingmemorable The modern homo sapiens is a strange case of evolution in that we live in a society where we do not let people with unfavourable mutations die (quite rightly so). However, we do employ selective breeding, which means that if nature can't do the selecting by killing us off, then we choose which genes we want to be passed on ourselves by picking appropriate mates. If we think that someone is arrogant or rude, we probably won't mate with them.
Hal Holbrook was not in jaws, as a matter of fact, he has played Mark Twain on stage many times, whom I'm pretty sure was no creationist. It's a shame the material didn't rub off on him.
@jbooks888 I don't blame you for trying to convince people that evolution didn't happen, since it clearly shows that your myths aren't true, but you can't convince the intelligent and well-educated. We already know that your sky wizard isn't real and that evolution is fact.
"It will take just one minute for every single one to hit the jackpot"
which by context I interpret you to mean this is the average time it will take for all of them to display the bacteria. This is false, as should be intuitively clear: getting bacteria in all of them is harder than getting it only on the first, so it takes more time. I can compute the exact average time if you want, but a (crude) bound would be of course 4x250=1000 minutes
@uvauva2 Each of the 4 wheels on a machine spins at the same time, and each machine is running at the same time as well. If you did them in sequence, you'd be right, but because all the machines are running at the same time, and each one takes (on average) one minute to display the bacteria, then ALL OF THEM TOGETHER would also only take one minute. I know you posted 2 weeks ago, but nobody has addressed your points yet, so I figured I would.
"but because all the machines are running at the same time, and each one takes (on average) one minute to display the bacteria, then ALL OF THEM TOGETHER would also only take one minute."
I'll be brusque here, but you are wrong. This is the very mistake I am correcting. I'm not a fan of appeals to authority, but for the sake of removing any doubt from your mind, I'll point out that I'm a mathematician, and the situation at hand is a standard one you learn in a first year (...)
(...) undergraduate course in probability: the random variable in question is what one would call the maximum of independent identically distributed geometric random variables.
Now that I've exercised my authority, let me try to explain why the expected time is not 1 minute. For simplicity assume you have only two wheels.
Notice that though you are running them simultaneously, they need not stop (display the bacteria) at the same time. Hence the time it takes for the (...)
the two wheels to stop is always at least the time it takes the first wheel, call it "1", to stop. But, and this is the crucial point, sometimes (that is, with nonzero probability) it is bigger. It then follows that the average time it takes both to stop is larger than the time it takes "1" to stop.
Hope this clarifies it. For reference, the actual exact expected stopping time (for two wheels) is (96/11)*10s = 87.(27) s.
@uvauva2 I ignored the first half of your reply. You're anything you want to be on the internet. I also took first-year probability courses back in my first year, and did not learn this.
That being said, you're right. Although I didn't understand a word of what you said, I figured out after posting (and after I had access to a computer, so I couldn't come back and correct myself) that I was wrong. I was going to come back and say so, but you saw my message first. My mistake.
"I also took first-year probability courses back in my first year, and did not learn this."
You really should have. Are you telling me you had a first-year undergraduate probability course and you didn't learn geometric distributions (aka geometric memoryless random variables)? Here's a thing for you to prove: the minimum of independent geometric distributions is still a geometric.
"I ignored the first half of your reply."
As you wish, but I AM a mathematician, and have (...)
no time to waste with people who think I might be wrong about trivial mathematical facts. Or in other words, I've no problem with teaching, but there is nothing to be discussed here.
I felt you deserved an answer, given that you tried to correct me on a trivial matter and then then even had the gall to be haughty about it when apologizing.
Why an I in your inbox now? Because you are still displaying inadequate arrogance for the situation, and I will not tolerate you trying to berate me when the fault lies entirely on you.
"then there would be a 1 in 20 chance of picking up the right ball each time, so it would take an average of about 10 seconds to pick the right number"
The average time is actually 20s (the inverse of the probability of picking it in one try) Reference: wiki "geometric distribution".
If you use dice as an example, Evolution is sort of like a game of Yahtzee. If you are trying for 5 of a kind, like 5 sizes, then every time you shake the cup and spill out the dice, you keep the sixes (if any) and put the rest back in the cup to be shaken again. Every time you get any sixes, your keep them and put the rest back to be shaken again. Eventually you only have one dice left that need to be shaken until it finally comes up a six. A good example of the selection process. Right?
@BigFatHeretic yup. What I find is that some creationists think that evolution happens with a clear purpose in mind, as if a eukaryote already knows "I'm going to change into a dog!" Which would make the whole theory sound ridiculous.
There is no disputing the mechanism of evolution is as this video suggests. You can show that mathmatically. However each example assumes a full formed, slot machine, dice in a box or whatever allowing it to happend.
The question is, if you throw a bunch of Amino Acid together, how long would they take to form a self replacating molecule?
There is lots of speculation on how that happened but can you calculate the odds?
@Texmurphy51 Actually, the reseach going on at Harvard Medical school, (among other places) is attempting just that, so we may have the answer very soon.
@HonestMan395 This type of research has been going on since the 1950s. It can be shown that certain bits of organic compounds combine but how do you calculate the odds of a self replicating organism happening?
The video shows that natural selection narrows the odds of advanced life but you need the living organism to start. You need the little virus or prion or whatever started it all.
Would be like AI, easy to show how self aware program would evolve but what about the first one?
@Texmurphy51 1. I’ll admit, I don’t know exactly how life was created myself, I’m not that clever, but research by Prof. Jack Szostak At Harvard Medical School has resulted in the creation of a primitive cell membrane that he calls a proto cell, which has a very basic ability to divide and replicate itself..
Also, Prof. George Church, also of Harvard, has already identified the 151 components that are believed to be the minimum needed to create a living cell. Cont’d
@Texmurphy51 2. He has also created a working synthetic Ribosome, the machinery within the cell that decodes the DNA and manufactures the Proteins necessary for creating living cells. He believes that we are within a year or two of artificially creating the first living cell, capable of self-replication, NOT created by nature.
But this is just one of many similar research projects going all over the world today. Cont’d.
@Texmurphy51 3. When successful, and I’m sure they will be, it will be the biggest evidence for how life could have started naturally.
After all, if humans can provide the conditions that allow a living cell to emerge, with just a few chemicals and in just a few years, then the idea that nature couldn’t do the same, with a whole planet of volatile chemicals and at least 1 million years (the estimated time to the start of life) to do it in, is plainly ridiculous.
« otherwise there would be more than 1 form of it. »
(1/2)
That does not necessarily follow. It is easy to explain how all life might have come to be related. One hypothesises that the first cellular replicators were very simple compared to the simplest cells nowadays: they would have little of the membrane-based mechanisms modern cells have, and their membranes would be much more permeable to genetic molecules.
« otherwise there would be more than 1 form of it. »
(2/2)
If so, then all life resulting from such a stock would exchange genetic materials freely, so that even if they had markedly different contents, much of their contents would be shared between them.
Simultaneously - or alternatively! - multiple origins may have existed, after which one simply overtook the others in reproductive rate, and "consumed" them (either literally, or by rapid exchange of genetic material).
Most creationists like myself believe in natural selection. But you speak of evolution like a scientist in action. We are both in the realm of faith. My faith is in God. I belieev God is the Intelligent Designer. I also believe that music is a beautiful thing. Materialism is not my God.
@psalmblues Evolution is a matter of demonstrable fact not faith. It is not about materialism, it is merely observing the world and not attributing them for no reason to supernatural phenomenon. For example if you dropped an apple, would you attribute its fall to gravity or to a magical invisible pixie pinning it to the ground at the same speed of gravity? One is clearly more likely than the other.
Not sure what is more offensive the stupidity spewing from their mouths or that dumbass's absolutely abysmal lack of gun safety. Don't care if it was a fake or not, gun safety isn't something to dick around with. But considering how stupid he must be, maybe he should shoot himself in the head. That way there would finally be something of value in it.
The probability of getting 1 of those blocks to land on the right number (assuming they all have 6 sides and only 1 of those sides is correct) is 1/6. Therefore the odds of getting the sequence is (1/6)^20 power. It's a staggeringly small probability, but no where near the 77 billion years he claims, but 115,936,023.594 years, an error of about 700. It took about 30 seconds for me to do the math for this with a calculator. Don't make up numbers, that merely detracts from your argument.
Do you really desire to discover how experienced technique gamblers are usually making more than one hundred sixty.thousand Us dollars every year? Using a few hrs on a regular basis? Get the zero cost truth on roulettecash !! org
@badpanda84 There one other argument is that everything must have been created by something. They are then to stupid to understand that this simple statement implies that any god must also have been created. Logic is never a good place to start with a zealot.
Creationists are incapable of understanding the concept of "random". They are steeped in the idea of "divine design" and so they assume that evolutionists also believe that the evolutionary process is "trying" to create a certain preconceived animal or accomplish a certain preconceived goal.
This logical lapse needs to be addressed by evolutionists more vigorously.
After just 82 completely ransom mutations on the randommutation site, i ended up with something that wasn't marked in read by my danish spell-checker, if the spell-checker was the environment then the new sentence would do much better then the original English one.
There is a mechanism in place that has proven effective for minor changes through evolution, but this does not explain how life came to exist.There can be no choosing for advantageous traits until you have a protein or strand of RNA (or similar polypeptide chain) that is capable of reproduction. The video also assumes that getting a one would be advantageous to the organism... but this is looking to the future with a direction that a blind watchmaker cannot achieve.
@robertvroom Yes, getting the numbers in order from 1-20 is advantageous, but evolution does not choose for the one or the two, etc. unless there is an advantage at that point. Unless every step is an advantage in and of itself, you will never get this sequence.
This makes sense for, lets say, a wolf evolving to a German shepherd, but could you do a video on species change, and also one explaining how the first organisms evolved and why they would evolve further? If you already got one send me the link. I like your videos, most "anti-creation" video's are like political ad's. they do nothing to show what they think, and only bash on the other party.
"explaining how the first organisms evolved and why they would evolve further?"
If you already accept that evolution does happen at some scale, what makes you ask why something would continue to evolve? Why would they stop evolving to begin with? I don't see where the block is that would prevent evolution to continue working after a set amount of time.
@Nails077 Well things evolve to better survive in their environment. they don't evolve just cuz it's the cool thing to do. If that were the case everything would evolve differently, not every species EVERYTHING. If there's no reason to evolve things won't. it doesn't make scientific sense to do it.
@MLeonBridges True that if you are perfectly adapted to your environment and there is no competition. there is no reason to change. But with competition from rivals that keep evolving to gain an advantage over you, you have to keep evolving to keep up. Of course if the environment keeps changing you need to keep evolving to stay adapted to it too. Or fail that and perish.
A good example of parallel evolution is the thylacine (aka the tazmanian tiger) It resembled but was not related to wolves or coyote (as it was a marsupial).
Sorry. Hal Holbrook was not mayor Larry Vaughn in the movie "Jaws." The actor who played the mayor is often misidentified as Holbrook. His name is Murray Hamilton. He died in 1986. Holbrook is still among us.
I dont think you can blame an actor for taking a job, perhaps he can accept the award on behalf of his employer, whoever they are ? He was on The Bold Ones and West Wing tv series, long distinguished acting career.
@InverStone =That's Hal Holbrook.= There's a note at the beginning of the video to read the video description before commenting. You didn't, did you? :-)
@Potholer54debunks And you didn't read InverStone's post carefully did you? All he did was agree with your identification of the actor in your video and point out that he wasn't in Jaws. And he wasn't.
Ok, so it takes time to select the second number, what if 1 has no purpose until it is combined with the number 2 - in other words, no purpose by itself. It will cease to exist within a generation or two, long before the ninth to eighteenth generation. How does it evolve into a complex organism when a simple mutation is not sustained over many generations?
@chinterman A good question, with a relatively simple answer. There are two things working in favor even if 1 must be bound to 2 before it becomes selectively advantageous.
Firstly, just because 1 is not beneficial does not mean it is harmful. Mutations that are "neutral" with regards to a species's fitness in a given environment are the most common. So, just because it isn't beneficial yet does not mean it will be removed from the genome quickly.
@chinterman Second, the probability of having the sequence 1-2 in the given number set is still not very high. Instead of 1/20 odds of getting a 1 in the first spot, the probability of 1-2 being in the first two spots is 1/380, which is still a much lower number than the proposed values given in the film.
@chinterman For a practical example, check out Richard Lenski's long term evolution experiment. It shows that a group of bacteria evolved the ability to feed on citrate, and that that ability required 2 mutations... the first one apparently useless and harmless, but powerful when combined with the second mutation
I did a small simulation of the 20 box problem. The average seconds it took to pull the right order of 2500 attempts was 209.6 seconds with 1 for variance. That means we can be very confident it was take between 205 and 210 seconds. For 200 numbers, the mean was 16343 seconds and a variance of 900. meaning somwhere in [16223,16463] lol Wheres the billions of years. Thats about 4 hours. lol
So creationists basically believe that we are supposed to be how we are. They talk of picking numbers 'in sequence' because they believe that our 'sequence' (an obvious reference to DNA) was predetermined and we had to ARRIVE at this rather than just the result of evolutionary pressures over billions of years that have lead to the features of the human species we happen to have now.
All creationists are saying the same thing: "God did it, the bible says it, that settles it!" And then slapping their hands over their ears and going "LALALALALALALALALA!!!!"
Dunno if anyone mentioned this (I've checked; someone did :P), but the actor is actually Hal Holbrook, who was the corrupt lieutenant in Magnum Force. Murray Hamilton, who played the mayor in Jaws, died in 1986, unfortunately.
Too bad this doesn't make Hal right about evolution, eh? :)
haha good one... Btw did you know that Norway i English is a more correct name than in Norwegian? In Norwegian the country is Called Norge or Noreg (this last one is new Norwegian) But originaly the country is reffered to in the 800's as the way north or the north way. The Danish fuckers didn't understand this and this its now Norge but in local (those who made up the new norwegian) knew better. Because Nord (north) and veg (dialect for road) makes up Noreg... Language can be fun so is evolution
@Dextomus An exonym (from the Greek: ἔξω, éxō, "out" and ὄνομα, ónoma, "name") is a name for a place or a personal name[1] that differs from that used in the official or well-established language within that place or for that person by the local inhabitants,[2] or a name for a people or language that is not native to the people or language to which it refers.
@Dextomus The name used by the people or locals themselves is called endonym, autonym (from the Greek ἔνδον, éndon, "within" or αὐτό, autó, "self" and ὄνομα, ónoma, "name"), or self-appellation. For example, Germany, Greece, and Japan are the English exonyms corresponding to the endonyms Deutschland, Ellas, and Nippon/Nihon.
I am sure someone has already posted this but I thought I would post this up anyway just in case.
The Idiot with the numbered building blocks is Hal Holbrook of Dirty Harry and Magnum force fame. The actor who played the mayor in Jaws was Murray Hamilton.
Seriously what's with gods people and weapons? Where is the peace and love they promote? Oh wait actualy their book promotes death,distruction,misery,hate,fear,pain and all those other good things that we need in life.
In this new episode of Future Weapons, creationism comes into play! Please welcome the "GOD GUN!" It kills all people who are not Christian and even then, if used by fundamentalists, it kills all non fundamentalists.
The dumbness of some people is beyond comprehension. Perhaps evolution played a trick allowing the dumbest of the dumbest to survive so they can be shown as examples.
@politicalfarce: Nail on the head award for you, sir! It is a crying shame that 11 years of school, 4 to 8 years of higher education, well stocked libraries and quality TV fail to inform people that absurd gods and barking mad holy books do NOT explain anything.
Didn't like the joke about "geriatric actors". Everyone should be respected as human beings. We may make fun out of their stupid ideas but never of their age.
One thing Potholer54, while you're making a good point with accumulative probability, there's one problem. It won't lead to the 77,000,000 years, it's just that when you take a number from the box, unless you leave it out it can still be an indefinite time until you find the correct number.
By my calculation, the expected time to get all 20 numbers in the right order is 81.72 (Including the an extra second to fit the last number in - which is impossible to get wrong)
You should take out the scene from "Jaws" and replace it with a scene from "All the President's Men". That looks like Hal Holbrook, who played Deep Throat. He wasn't the guy in "Jaws". Ok, nerd moment passed, now I'll watch the rest of the video. =)
@Ch0mpyFrank I understand creationism, but I don't believe in it. You can still understand evolution, but choose not to believe in it. Most creationists choose not to even bother trying to understand.
@im4everskilled of course, I'm not denying that there are people whose faith is stronger than their knowledge. It just saddens me that creationists don't even know what they are trying to refute half the time, and if they did they might not be so enthusiastic.
"... and like going postal on a rowing boat" I laughed milk through my nose lol
hostyle0 2 days ago
The first actor is Hal Holbrook, rather a good actor actually and he didn't play the mayor in Jaws. That was Murry Hamilton. Not to qibble as I love your videos!
brucewallace2 6 days ago
Is there really a website that allows you to type in a word which then randomly changes a letter? Where is it?
TaiFerret 1 week ago
0:56 "Eventually we'd get a better ad". I love that example! If you could define a fitness function for what constitutes a good ad (which would very hard to do since that's essentially a Natural Language Processing problem) then what he's describing is almost sort of like genetic programming. :)
Dilandau3000 2 weeks ago
del boca vista... sometimes you crack me up too much potholer
325982668 3 weeks ago
wait so my DNA get errors in it from gun fire? well i guess death is a major error
bourbonated 3 weeks ago
What is so hard to understand about beneficial mutations and natural selection? Are creationists illiterate?
Tareltonlives 1 month ago
@Tareltonlives Exactly, it is such a simple self-evident concept, there stupid fundamentalist religious views however blind them from what is so easy to understand.
MisterRedstone 3 weeks ago
Seeing Hal Holbrook in this makes me very sad. He was such a great Mark Twain. Guess he should have learned from his performance in Magnum Force... a man's got to know his limitations.
Fornenvael 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 The flaw potholer points out in every analogy is that natural selection completely breaks it. Has natural selection not been observed?
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
@IoEstasCedonta Depends on how you define natural selection. Natural selection in the sense that a population that already exists, having some advantage over another existing population, over enough time will begin to stand out and replace the other population, yes. Natural selection in the sense that a single expressed mutation will pop up with a significant benefit and replace the others? Not that I'm aware of.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 It's irrelevant to the glaring breakdown of these particular analogies.
(You can find it if you look, but it's not relevant to the original point.)
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
@IoEstasCedonta I suppose not, but you're the one who brought the issue up. That's possible I suppose, but because that is the required mechanism for evolutionary history to work at all you would think it would be out in the open more as opposed to subtly hidden away in the research.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 While you may have thought I brought it up, I brought up natural selection only to point out potholer's gripe was with these specific analogies, not analogies in general.
The reason it's not "out in the open more" is that information theory as pertains to biological evolution is much more technical than most creationists think. I'll go into it if you really want, but it's a bit much for 500 characters.
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
@IoEstasCedonta I didn't think you brought it up, you did bring it up by asking a question about it (with no indication that you didn't want me to answer said question).
Not really buying it, but I'll bite; feel free to just send me a message sometime if you care to describe it in your own words (or paraphrasing what not).
Sickopath333 1 month ago
7:09 What the...? Why is half of Asia (especially Turkey and Iran) the same color as the Germanic-speaking countries in Europe and Africa? Why are the Slavic-speaking Baltic states, for that matter?
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
You know, just because I find the precept of this video funny I would love to see somebody doing the same thing here but with evolutionary authors and speakers (Richard Dawkins for ex.) and the analogies they use (Dawkins has one with weasels or something I think, I can't recall right now). I mean, since analogies are apparantly a bad thing we should mock, then we need to do the same thing when evolutionists employ them, right? It's like some evolutionists are hypocrites or something.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 So what is that analogy with weasels, exactly? Does it ignore a key principle of what he's making an analogy for, one that's been observed throughout nature, like the casino and box ones do?
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
@IoEstasCedonta I wasn't aware that we had observed the evolution of single-celled organisms from non-living proteins before.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 The problem is not that the use of analogies is bad, it's just that the use of *wrong* analogies are bad; such as those debunked here: At best they're strawmen, at worst outright deceitful. Why is Dawkins allegded weasel-analogy wrong?
SuperShiningSun 1 month ago
@SuperShiningSun I can't remember what his analogy was called, so I don't remember exactly what it was or the issue with it. My main point was that I would just find it humorous to see a reply video to this one debunking analogies used by the heroes of potholer54's side. Essentially an advocate for one side is rarely a critic of that side.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333 >>I can't remember what his analogy was called, so I don't remember exactly what it was or the issue with it.<< Then I suggest you do the research and find out what the issue is, if there indeed is an issue, before you take the stage and demand that it be debunked. This is not a political debate, and you have to actually be demonstrably wrong before you can be debunked.
SuperShiningSun 1 month ago
@Sickopath333
"Essentially an advocate for one side is rarely a critic of that side."
We're talking about evolution here. There isn't such a thing as "two sides" here. There's science and there's idiots.
uvauva2 4 weeks ago
@uvauva2 I'll say there isn't such a thing as two sides... science supposedly welcomes criticism and scrutiny, but on this issue it's basically a crime to do so. Tells you a bit more about science then what the rosey-glasses would make you believe. There's the ideal form of science, and then there's the simple reality.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
"but on this issue it's basically a crime to do so."
You should stop drinking all the propaganda you see.
Furthermore, if you actually think that the content addressed in this video classifies as "criticism" as opposed to willful stupidity, that says a lot about i) your (lack of) understanding of the concepts ii) your mathematical (in)ability.
In fact, here's a test: Potholer committed one (I would say rather serious) mathematical error in this video. Did you spot it?
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 I'm referencing the concept in general, not particularly in this video. As you put it, there are either scientists (who agree with it) or idiots (who disagree with it). So, what I refute that with is by saying, you either have to agree with it (and be intelligent, whoo-hoo!) or critisize the precious theory and be an outcast (not how science should work).
There's one at the 3:00 mark; that isn't how probability works at all. It wouldn't just be 20 seconds at most.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333
"I'm referencing the concept in general, not particularly in this video."
Then maybe you should spell out "the concept".
"As you put it, there are either scientists (who agree with it) or idiots (who disagree with it)."
And I'll repeat it: If you think any of the criticisms addressed in this video have anything to them then yes, you are an idiot. The acceptance of criticism in science is no "all you can spew" buffet, which is what your phrasing suggests (...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
(...)
"There's one at the 3:00 mark; that isn't how probability works at all."
Nope. That's not it. It's true potholer's phrasing makes it strictly incorrect (and he addresses this in the video description), but everything around that point is still true if one takes the numbers to be the expected values of the random variables, which is what one really cares about. There's another (somewhat related) error which is harder to fix, while still relevant for the point he is making.
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 Well I could watch the video looking for a similar mistake but I really don't care to. My point was not dealing with specifics it was dealing with generalities, so I'm just going to be lazy here.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
Around 4:10. Correcting the estimated time for when the multiple machines would stop would require some pieces of math quite a bit beyond what potholer presents.
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
Excellent video - but (anticipating an objection) what about the non-advantageous and potentially harmful random gene mutations that get passed on and multiplied anyway?
nothingmemorable 1 month ago
@nothingmemorable If they really are harmful then they probably won't get passed on. This is the premise of evolution.
MrPianoJames 1 month ago
@MrPianoJames But they do get passed on ... especially by human beings where money, power, intellectual brilliance, artistitic talent, character, and business success cover a multitude of genetic defects.
nothingmemorable 1 month ago
@nothingmemorable The modern homo sapiens is a strange case of evolution in that we live in a society where we do not let people with unfavourable mutations die (quite rightly so). However, we do employ selective breeding, which means that if nature can't do the selecting by killing us off, then we choose which genes we want to be passed on ourselves by picking appropriate mates. If we think that someone is arrogant or rude, we probably won't mate with them.
MrPianoJames 1 month ago
@nothingmemorable
Those genetic lines are called "dead ends."
Beandude202 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
@Beandude202 Not until they actually do end.
nothingmemorable 1 month ago
Hal Holbrook was not in jaws, as a matter of fact, he has played Mark Twain on stage many times, whom I'm pretty sure was no creationist. It's a shame the material didn't rub off on him.
lessevdoolbretsim 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
Actually, evolution is more like a box of turds.
jbooks888 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@jbooks888 People knows what is inside but doesn´t like it?
Kabitu1 2 months ago
@Kabitu1 You can interpret my comment any way you want.
jbooks888 2 months ago
@jbooks888 I don't blame you for trying to convince people that evolution didn't happen, since it clearly shows that your myths aren't true, but you can't convince the intelligent and well-educated. We already know that your sky wizard isn't real and that evolution is fact.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
Creationists have a Tendency to hold on to the one fact about the one theory that supports their claim and Ignoring the rest of it
BorikeTheBlackDragon 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
Has Hal Holbrook got so desperate for work that he aligns himself with this creationist rubbish. He must really need the money.
Genechanger 2 months ago
Look out he's got a gun! hahaha love the videos!
jspaul33 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
penis
gastrozimirvox 3 months ago
Math mistake in the video at 4:15.
You say:
"It will take just one minute for every single one to hit the jackpot"
which by context I interpret you to mean this is the average time it will take for all of them to display the bacteria. This is false, as should be intuitively clear: getting bacteria in all of them is harder than getting it only on the first, so it takes more time. I can compute the exact average time if you want, but a (crude) bound would be of course 4x250=1000 minutes
uvauva2 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
@uvauva2 Each of the 4 wheels on a machine spins at the same time, and each machine is running at the same time as well. If you did them in sequence, you'd be right, but because all the machines are running at the same time, and each one takes (on average) one minute to display the bacteria, then ALL OF THEM TOGETHER would also only take one minute. I know you posted 2 weeks ago, but nobody has addressed your points yet, so I figured I would.
AnzaBrush 4 months ago
@AnzaBrush
"but because all the machines are running at the same time, and each one takes (on average) one minute to display the bacteria, then ALL OF THEM TOGETHER would also only take one minute."
I'll be brusque here, but you are wrong. This is the very mistake I am correcting. I'm not a fan of appeals to authority, but for the sake of removing any doubt from your mind, I'll point out that I'm a mathematician, and the situation at hand is a standard one you learn in a first year (...)
uvauva2 4 months ago
@AnzaBrush
(...) undergraduate course in probability: the random variable in question is what one would call the maximum of independent identically distributed geometric random variables.
Now that I've exercised my authority, let me try to explain why the expected time is not 1 minute. For simplicity assume you have only two wheels.
Notice that though you are running them simultaneously, they need not stop (display the bacteria) at the same time. Hence the time it takes for the (...)
uvauva2 4 months ago
@AnzaBrush
(...)
the two wheels to stop is always at least the time it takes the first wheel, call it "1", to stop. But, and this is the crucial point, sometimes (that is, with nonzero probability) it is bigger. It then follows that the average time it takes both to stop is larger than the time it takes "1" to stop.
Hope this clarifies it. For reference, the actual exact expected stopping time (for two wheels) is (96/11)*10s = 87.(27) s.
uvauva2 4 months ago
@uvauva2 I ignored the first half of your reply. You're anything you want to be on the internet. I also took first-year probability courses back in my first year, and did not learn this.
That being said, you're right. Although I didn't understand a word of what you said, I figured out after posting (and after I had access to a computer, so I couldn't come back and correct myself) that I was wrong. I was going to come back and say so, but you saw my message first. My mistake.
AnzaBrush 4 months ago
@AnzaBrush
"I also took first-year probability courses back in my first year, and did not learn this."
You really should have. Are you telling me you had a first-year undergraduate probability course and you didn't learn geometric distributions (aka geometric memoryless random variables)? Here's a thing for you to prove: the minimum of independent geometric distributions is still a geometric.
"I ignored the first half of your reply."
As you wish, but I AM a mathematician, and have (...)
uvauva2 4 months ago
@uvauva2
Small typo: when I say "aka geometric memoryless" I actually mean "aka DISCRETE memoryless"
uvauva2 4 months ago
@AnzaBrush
(...)
no time to waste with people who think I might be wrong about trivial mathematical facts. Or in other words, I've no problem with teaching, but there is nothing to be discussed here.
uvauva2 4 months ago
@AnzaBrush
"Although I didn't understand a word of what you said"
Then I advise you to try, as you may learn something. In words I was saying no more than this:
Let X be the r.v. for the time it takes the two wheels to stop, and Y the r.v. for the time it takes wheel "1" to stop.
Then X >= Y & Prob(X > Y) > 0, hence E[X] > E[Y].
Also, do see if you can compute the 96/11 expected value for yourself.
uvauva2 4 months ago
@uvauva2 I already agreed with you, and said I already figured out I was wrong on my own. Why are you still in my inbox?
AnzaBrush 4 months ago
@AnzaBrush
I felt you deserved an answer, given that you tried to correct me on a trivial matter and then then even had the gall to be haughty about it when apologizing.
Why an I in your inbox now? Because you are still displaying inadequate arrogance for the situation, and I will not tolerate you trying to berate me when the fault lies entirely on you.
uvauva2 4 months ago
Math mistake in the video description point 3)
"then there would be a 1 in 20 chance of picking up the right ball each time, so it would take an average of about 10 seconds to pick the right number"
The average time is actually 20s (the inverse of the probability of picking it in one try) Reference: wiki "geometric distribution".
Please correct it... For the children.
uvauva2 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
That guy at the beginning with the box full of numbered blocks looks like Hal Holbrook.
tekbarrier 5 months ago
I was trying to think like a creationist. Then I realized, it didn't have anything to do with thinking.
dmorono 5 months ago
If you use dice as an example, Evolution is sort of like a game of Yahtzee. If you are trying for 5 of a kind, like 5 sizes, then every time you shake the cup and spill out the dice, you keep the sixes (if any) and put the rest back in the cup to be shaken again. Every time you get any sixes, your keep them and put the rest back to be shaken again. Eventually you only have one dice left that need to be shaken until it finally comes up a six. A good example of the selection process. Right?
BigFatHeretic 5 months ago
@BigFatHeretic yup. What I find is that some creationists think that evolution happens with a clear purpose in mind, as if a eukaryote already knows "I'm going to change into a dog!" Which would make the whole theory sound ridiculous.
PointlessSteel 5 months ago
people do win the lotto..99.99999999999% don't
timdnwd 5 months ago
I can't believe that Perry Mason got this guy to stand in for him. I thought Perry and Della had better taste in lawyers :(
lateformyownbirth 5 months ago
What are the odds creationist's would stop using the same old debunked tactics against evolution and actually pick up a biology book?
Very small apparently.
luisdez81 6 months ago
I used to like Hal Holbrook, but he is getting on a bit, so I suppose we should make allowances for his age.
HonestMan395 6 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Well that is abiogenesis, evolution starts after life began
pochopaz7381 6 months ago
There is no disputing the mechanism of evolution is as this video suggests. You can show that mathmatically. However each example assumes a full formed, slot machine, dice in a box or whatever allowing it to happend.
The question is, if you throw a bunch of Amino Acid together, how long would they take to form a self replacating molecule?
There is lots of speculation on how that happened but can you calculate the odds?
Texmurphy51 6 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Actually, the reseach going on at Harvard Medical school, (among other places) is attempting just that, so we may have the answer very soon.
HonestMan395 6 months ago
@HonestMan395 This type of research has been going on since the 1950s. It can be shown that certain bits of organic compounds combine but how do you calculate the odds of a self replicating organism happening?
The video shows that natural selection narrows the odds of advanced life but you need the living organism to start. You need the little virus or prion or whatever started it all.
Would be like AI, easy to show how self aware program would evolve but what about the first one?
Texmurphy51 6 months ago
@Texmurphy51 1. I’ll admit, I don’t know exactly how life was created myself, I’m not that clever, but research by Prof. Jack Szostak At Harvard Medical School has resulted in the creation of a primitive cell membrane that he calls a proto cell, which has a very basic ability to divide and replicate itself..
Also, Prof. George Church, also of Harvard, has already identified the 151 components that are believed to be the minimum needed to create a living cell. Cont’d
HonestMan395 6 months ago
@Texmurphy51 2. He has also created a working synthetic Ribosome, the machinery within the cell that decodes the DNA and manufactures the Proteins necessary for creating living cells. He believes that we are within a year or two of artificially creating the first living cell, capable of self-replication, NOT created by nature.
But this is just one of many similar research projects going all over the world today. Cont’d.
HonestMan395 6 months ago
@Texmurphy51 3. When successful, and I’m sure they will be, it will be the biggest evidence for how life could have started naturally.
After all, if humans can provide the conditions that allow a living cell to emerge, with just a few chemicals and in just a few years, then the idea that nature couldn’t do the same, with a whole planet of volatile chemicals and at least 1 million years (the estimated time to the start of life) to do it in, is plainly ridiculous.
HonestMan395 6 months ago
@HonestMan395 "When successful..."
True Science does not have the answer before the research is done.
You need to say If Successful.
I have little doubt that Evolution is true but even those who developed it had to change their original hypothesis on how it works
I seriously doubt that a living cell will emerge from a test tube without major help.
It will be difficult to replicate the beginning of life, otherwise there would be more than 1 form of it.
An other DNA type that is.
Texmurphy51 6 months ago
@Texmurphy51 You obviously haven't looked into the work of Jack Szostak and George church at all. I don't suppse you will.
I'll give you a hint. You won't find it on any christian apologetics websites, unless they are ridiculing it.
I can tell that unless it fits with your religion, you're not interested.
That's the Creationist method:
Here’s the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?
I prefer science:
The Scientific Method:
Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?
HonestMan395 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HonestMan395 sez "I prefer science:The Scientific Method"
I say again Science does not assume a conclusion before the the experiment is run.
I am sure if Szostak & Church had produced al iving cell form a test tube it would be World News.
Your not reading me correctly, I have no Religion, I am an Agnostic.
I am simply trying to stop Science from becoming the "Creationist Method"
Working towards a goal is fine but thinking you know the answer before proof is not Science
Texmurphy51 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« otherwise there would be more than 1 form of it. »
(1/2)
That does not necessarily follow. It is easy to explain how all life might have come to be related. One hypothesises that the first cellular replicators were very simple compared to the simplest cells nowadays: they would have little of the membrane-based mechanisms modern cells have, and their membranes would be much more permeable to genetic molecules.
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« otherwise there would be more than 1 form of it. »
(2/2)
If so, then all life resulting from such a stock would exchange genetic materials freely, so that even if they had markedly different contents, much of their contents would be shared between them.
Simultaneously - or alternatively! - multiple origins may have existed, after which one simply overtook the others in reproductive rate, and "consumed" them (either literally, or by rapid exchange of genetic material).
XGralgrathor 5 months ago
Most creationists like myself believe in natural selection. But you speak of evolution like a scientist in action. We are both in the realm of faith. My faith is in God. I belieev God is the Intelligent Designer. I also believe that music is a beautiful thing. Materialism is not my God.
psalmblues 7 months ago
@psalmblues Evolution is a matter of demonstrable fact not faith. It is not about materialism, it is merely observing the world and not attributing them for no reason to supernatural phenomenon. For example if you dropped an apple, would you attribute its fall to gravity or to a magical invisible pixie pinning it to the ground at the same speed of gravity? One is clearly more likely than the other.
TheGamanic 6 months ago
you are just speculating like a fool without knowing in more detail the subject ,I am talking about the complexity of a DNA chane.
PQUINTA6 7 months ago
Hal Holbrook is now a crap peddler?
What's the world coming to?
SpaceOdyssey56 7 months ago
Hal Holbrook was DeepThroat in All the Presidents Men
cowboyx1970 7 months ago
You should have put up a counter for all the old guy jokes
kilroy227 8 months ago
Creationists will cut a branch from underneth there feet to proove there silly points.
so2fast4u2 8 months ago
Not sure what is more offensive the stupidity spewing from their mouths or that dumbass's absolutely abysmal lack of gun safety. Don't care if it was a fake or not, gun safety isn't something to dick around with. But considering how stupid he must be, maybe he should shoot himself in the head. That way there would finally be something of value in it.
mistereveready 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i thought you enjoy my videos .
FinalCutKing 9 months ago
The probability of getting 1 of those blocks to land on the right number (assuming they all have 6 sides and only 1 of those sides is correct) is 1/6. Therefore the odds of getting the sequence is (1/6)^20 power. It's a staggeringly small probability, but no where near the 77 billion years he claims, but 115,936,023.594 years, an error of about 700. It took about 30 seconds for me to do the math for this with a calculator. Don't make up numbers, that merely detracts from your argument.
ARKAtheist 9 months ago
@ARKAtheist : No, at least the math is correct: it would take 20! seconds, roughly 77 billion years.
It's an extraction without replacement, or a reordering of the blocks; you may have been mislead by their cubic shape :)
preuvezmoi 9 months ago
Shooting holes in your boat while afloat is just a bit stupid, isn't it? Oh, silly me. For a moment I forgot. He's a creationist!
effyleven 9 months ago
@effyleven natural selection at work.....
judgeculph 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you really desire to discover how experienced technique gamblers are usually making more than one hundred sixty.thousand Us dollars every year? Using a few hrs on a regular basis? Get the zero cost truth on roulettecash !! org
aquaticconceit3 9 months ago
All creationist argument are the same -- the universe is so amazing ( or complex) it cant be created by chance.
There isnt any other creationist argument ( aside from trying to discredit evoultion which isnt really and arguement as such)
badpanda84 10 months ago
@badpanda84 There one other argument is that everything must have been created by something. They are then to stupid to understand that this simple statement implies that any god must also have been created. Logic is never a good place to start with a zealot.
Huttate1 9 months ago
Creationists are incapable of understanding the concept of "random". They are steeped in the idea of "divine design" and so they assume that evolutionists also believe that the evolutionary process is "trying" to create a certain preconceived animal or accomplish a certain preconceived goal.
This logical lapse needs to be addressed by evolutionists more vigorously.
jbspry 10 months ago
After just 82 completely ransom mutations on the randommutation site, i ended up with something that wasn't marked in read by my danish spell-checker, if the spell-checker was the environment then the new sentence would do much better then the original English one.
AJenbo 11 months ago
He was still an idiot, just an idiot from Magnum Force instead.
VesusSheist 11 months ago
why 20 blocks? thats such a random number
viking977 1 year ago
"going postal on a rowing boat"
classic! :)
benatssu 1 year ago
There is a mechanism in place that has proven effective for minor changes through evolution, but this does not explain how life came to exist.There can be no choosing for advantageous traits until you have a protein or strand of RNA (or similar polypeptide chain) that is capable of reproduction. The video also assumes that getting a one would be advantageous to the organism... but this is looking to the future with a direction that a blind watchmaker cannot achieve.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom Yes, getting the numbers in order from 1-20 is advantageous, but evolution does not choose for the one or the two, etc. unless there is an advantage at that point. Unless every step is an advantage in and of itself, you will never get this sequence.
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom You are talking to yourself, stay in school, read a science book, and learn some LOGIC.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@robertvroom Darwin wrote ''Origin of Speces'' NOT Origin of life.
IF science proved God made the first cell THEN would you 'believe' in evolution?
gregrutz 1 year ago
heh i didnt know you had this 2nd channel, good work :)
gratex 1 year ago
he´s got a gun! quick! back to the library! phew.. .. rofl
0618033 1 year ago
This makes sense for, lets say, a wolf evolving to a German shepherd, but could you do a video on species change, and also one explaining how the first organisms evolved and why they would evolve further? If you already got one send me the link. I like your videos, most "anti-creation" video's are like political ad's. they do nothing to show what they think, and only bash on the other party.
MLeonBridges 1 year ago
@MLeonBridges
"explaining how the first organisms evolved and why they would evolve further?"
If you already accept that evolution does happen at some scale, what makes you ask why something would continue to evolve? Why would they stop evolving to begin with? I don't see where the block is that would prevent evolution to continue working after a set amount of time.
Nails077 1 year ago
@Nails077 Well things evolve to better survive in their environment. they don't evolve just cuz it's the cool thing to do. If that were the case everything would evolve differently, not every species EVERYTHING. If there's no reason to evolve things won't. it doesn't make scientific sense to do it.
MLeonBridges 1 year ago
@MLeonBridges True that if you are perfectly adapted to your environment and there is no competition. there is no reason to change. But with competition from rivals that keep evolving to gain an advantage over you, you have to keep evolving to keep up. Of course if the environment keeps changing you need to keep evolving to stay adapted to it too. Or fail that and perish.
Nails077 1 year ago
@evanWith7
A good example of parallel evolution is the thylacine (aka the tazmanian tiger) It resembled but was not related to wolves or coyote (as it was a marsupial).
Grendelwasright 1 year ago
The explanation for the guy in the Raff at the end was, the man was just crazy.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
what's a good example of paralell evolution? Horns or something?
evanWith7 1 year ago
del boca vista ;-)
Norbs80 1 year ago
I was kind of hoping the guy in the boat would shoot himself in the foot ... literally rather than just figuratively.
bustermk2 1 year ago
Holbrook got his ass blown to hell in the second Dirty Harry movie.
VesusSheist 1 year ago
Sorry. Hal Holbrook was not mayor Larry Vaughn in the movie "Jaws." The actor who played the mayor is often misidentified as Holbrook. His name is Murray Hamilton. He died in 1986. Holbrook is still among us.
MrWagman11 1 year ago
I dont think you can blame an actor for taking a job, perhaps he can accept the award on behalf of his employer, whoever they are ? He was on The Bold Ones and West Wing tv series, long distinguished acting career.
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
'and going postal on a boat'
I lost it right there haha
ThMrksman 1 year ago
That's Hal Holbrook. He wasn't the mayor on Jaws.
But he's probably an idiot.
InverStone 1 year ago
@InverStone =That's Hal Holbrook.= There's a note at the beginning of the video to read the video description before commenting. You didn't, did you? :-)
Potholer54debunks 1 year ago
@Potholer54debunks And you didn't read InverStone's post carefully did you? All he did was agree with your identification of the actor in your video and point out that he wasn't in Jaws. And he wasn't.
dimbulb23 8 months ago
Going postal on a rowing boat! lol!
godlynessdog 1 year ago
The guy in the vid is an actor by the name of Hal Holbrook. He was in one of the Dirty Harry movies.
funkyleo1973 1 year ago
Really? I didn't realise people thought like that. Idiots.
tootseuk 1 year ago
FREE KENT HOVIND!!
thedayitriedtodie 1 year ago
Nope, the idiot mayor in jaws was played by Murray Hamilton. ;)
udoloh 1 year ago
Looks more like Hal Holbrook to me not the mayor from Jaws.
74hodag 1 year ago
Ok, so it takes time to select the second number, what if 1 has no purpose until it is combined with the number 2 - in other words, no purpose by itself. It will cease to exist within a generation or two, long before the ninth to eighteenth generation. How does it evolve into a complex organism when a simple mutation is not sustained over many generations?
chinterman 1 year ago
@chinterman A good question, with a relatively simple answer. There are two things working in favor even if 1 must be bound to 2 before it becomes selectively advantageous.
Firstly, just because 1 is not beneficial does not mean it is harmful. Mutations that are "neutral" with regards to a species's fitness in a given environment are the most common. So, just because it isn't beneficial yet does not mean it will be removed from the genome quickly.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@chinterman Second, the probability of having the sequence 1-2 in the given number set is still not very high. Instead of 1/20 odds of getting a 1 in the first spot, the probability of 1-2 being in the first two spots is 1/380, which is still a much lower number than the proposed values given in the film.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@chinterman For a practical example, check out Richard Lenski's long term evolution experiment. It shows that a group of bacteria evolved the ability to feed on citrate, and that that ability required 2 mutations... the first one apparently useless and harmless, but powerful when combined with the second mutation
danoso0931 1 year ago
Well played, Sir!
JewsusKreist 1 year ago
I did a small simulation of the 20 box problem. The average seconds it took to pull the right order of 2500 attempts was 209.6 seconds with 1 for variance. That means we can be very confident it was take between 205 and 210 seconds. For 200 numbers, the mean was 16343 seconds and a variance of 900. meaning somwhere in [16223,16463] lol Wheres the billions of years. Thats about 4 hours. lol
aslowburnpdx1986 1 year ago
So creationists basically believe that we are supposed to be how we are. They talk of picking numbers 'in sequence' because they believe that our 'sequence' (an obvious reference to DNA) was predetermined and we had to ARRIVE at this rather than just the result of evolutionary pressures over billions of years that have lead to the features of the human species we happen to have now.
MeBeMat 1 year ago
So evolution is like poker and not like craps. Brilliant!
mjh012363 1 year ago
Comment removed
AjPuj 1 year ago
i am sorry for the people capable of thinking in the us
bocckoka 1 year ago
why does the Mayor from jaws have a vase full of swords in the background?
Notnowredman 1 year ago
All creationists are saying the same thing: "God did it, the bible says it, that settles it!" And then slapping their hands over their ears and going "LALALALALALALALALA!!!!"
jerico641 1 year ago
"Anglisc to English"
Excellent, truly
xmAdmAx57 1 year ago
Dunno if anyone mentioned this (I've checked; someone did :P), but the actor is actually Hal Holbrook, who was the corrupt lieutenant in Magnum Force. Murray Hamilton, who played the mayor in Jaws, died in 1986, unfortunately.
Too bad this doesn't make Hal right about evolution, eh? :)
badnewsBH 1 year ago
haha good one... Btw did you know that Norway i English is a more correct name than in Norwegian? In Norwegian the country is Called Norge or Noreg (this last one is new Norwegian) But originaly the country is reffered to in the 800's as the way north or the north way. The Danish fuckers didn't understand this and this its now Norge but in local (those who made up the new norwegian) knew better. Because Nord (north) and veg (dialect for road) makes up Noreg... Language can be fun so is evolution
Dextomus 1 year ago
@Dextomus An exonym (from the Greek: ἔξω, éxō, "out" and ὄνομα, ónoma, "name") is a name for a place or a personal name[1] that differs from that used in the official or well-established language within that place or for that person by the local inhabitants,[2] or a name for a people or language that is not native to the people or language to which it refers.
artblack01 1 year ago
@Dextomus The name used by the people or locals themselves is called endonym, autonym (from the Greek ἔνδον, éndon, "within" or αὐτό, autó, "self" and ὄνομα, ónoma, "name"), or self-appellation. For example, Germany, Greece, and Japan are the English exonyms corresponding to the endonyms Deutschland, Ellas, and Nippon/Nihon.
artblack01 1 year ago
I am sure someone has already posted this but I thought I would post this up anyway just in case.
The Idiot with the numbered building blocks is Hal Holbrook of Dirty Harry and Magnum force fame. The actor who played the mayor in Jaws was Murray Hamilton.
Great video as always...
TacticalAtheist 1 year ago
LMFAO @ 07:29
SilveradoNL 1 year ago
You're hillarious, fantastic vid.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
You make a good case, Potholer, but Mayor Vaughn has an urn full of swords. I'm not sure who to believe...
DrThunder88 1 year ago
Seriously what's with gods people and weapons? Where is the peace and love they promote? Oh wait actualy their book promotes death,distruction,misery,hate,fear,pain and all those other good things that we need in life.
DurexDurpaneu2 1 year ago
@DurexDurpaneu2
In this new episode of Future Weapons, creationism comes into play! Please welcome the "GOD GUN!" It kills all people who are not Christian and even then, if used by fundamentalists, it kills all non fundamentalists.
DarkZerkerX 1 year ago
@DarkZerkerX NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN 9!
DurexDurpaneu2 1 year ago
The dumbness of some people is beyond comprehension. Perhaps evolution played a trick allowing the dumbest of the dumbest to survive so they can be shown as examples.
Sebastian198004 1 year ago
@Sebastian198004 Sounds horrid! & TRUE!
madjimms 1 year ago
@Sebastian198004
Nah, I think dumb people are immune to evolution...maybe that's why they rarely get smarter.
DarkZerkerX 1 year ago
It's a disgrace that videos like this one are even NECESSARY.
It's just as bad as it would be if we ad to make videos to convince people the earth is NOT flat.
politicalfarce 1 year ago
@politicalfarce: Nail on the head award for you, sir! It is a crying shame that 11 years of school, 4 to 8 years of higher education, well stocked libraries and quality TV fail to inform people that absurd gods and barking mad holy books do NOT explain anything.
MrAugustNidor 1 year ago
Didn't like the joke about "geriatric actors". Everyone should be respected as human beings. We may make fun out of their stupid ideas but never of their age.
flaviofavero77 1 year ago
One thing Potholer54, while you're making a good point with accumulative probability, there's one problem. It won't lead to the 77,000,000 years, it's just that when you take a number from the box, unless you leave it out it can still be an indefinite time until you find the correct number.
By my calculation, the expected time to get all 20 numbers in the right order is 81.72 (Including the an extra second to fit the last number in - which is impossible to get wrong)
Samuelwhatshisface 1 year ago
This isn't very close to how I understand evolution. I'd propose this:
-A master set of 100 blocks is drawn to decide what is a beneficial set
-Hundreds of people draw 20 blocks at random
-Those that don't have any of the blocks in the correct sequence will drop out
-Those that have some right will attract new members on to their team
-Beneficial strings are kept, and the process is repeated with a few, small, random changes to the master set.
-Keep adding and removing members with every draw
Everstruggling 1 year ago
You should take out the scene from "Jaws" and replace it with a scene from "All the President's Men". That looks like Hal Holbrook, who played Deep Throat. He wasn't the guy in "Jaws". Ok, nerd moment passed, now I'll watch the rest of the video. =)
SillyCyban 1 year ago
Also, note how the first dude is conflating Spontaneous generation (long debunked) with evolution by natural selection.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Regarding the people in this video:
How do you know they are lying?
Just curious.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
As they say, you don't believe or disbelieve in evolution, you understand it or you don't.
Ch0mpyFrank 1 year ago
@Ch0mpyFrank I understand creationism, but I don't believe in it. You can still understand evolution, but choose not to believe in it. Most creationists choose not to even bother trying to understand.
im4everskilled 1 year ago
@im4everskilled of course, I'm not denying that there are people whose faith is stronger than their knowledge. It just saddens me that creationists don't even know what they are trying to refute half the time, and if they did they might not be so enthusiastic.
Ch0mpyFrank 1 year ago
small comment !
WWIILLL 1 year ago