I think that statement deserves a "herpy derp." Yes, a single organism that gets naturally selected for death would die. Duh. That's how it works.
As for the mutations, it depends on how many mutations there are. Generally, small mutations are quite survivable, with some increasing the organism's survivability, and some decreasing it by a little bit.
Actually, every human has an average of 7 point mutations that weren't present in either parent. In other words, you yourself are evidence that you're wrong. Booya.
@cmpresents "No organism would survive natural selection" This is a nonsensical claim. You are a prime example of an organism surviving natural selection because (assuming your channel gives your actual age) you have had plenty of time to reproduce, and hence pass on your genes to the "next" generation.
The variation that Natural selection 'acts on' comes from "random mutations." The bulk of which actually have no effects.
@onijester56 No, in a sense, he's ultimately right, at least as regards selection. We all get naturally selected sooner or later. That's why the statement deserved a "duh." The species survives, as you astutely point out, by its members reproducing themselves before they too become selected.
@PrometheusWithLight In a sense he's then also ultimately wrong then. The "point" (to be blunt) of natural selection is to select against genes and hence traits that are harmful to a species. The way to do so is to prevent reproduction because reproduction passes the genes to the next generation.
Any member of a species who then passes on its genes has (essentially, especially in the sense used) "survived natural selection". Ergo...
[But that's a predominately-technical approach...]
@cmpresents "I'm no prime example." So then you have no children. Pretty sad, then.
"Only in your mind is what you say possible." Actually it's observed every day by every organism. But since the simple way is too hard for you to understand, here's the retarded way:
Mommy and Daddy made a baby! Baby has Mommy's and Daddy's genes so genes survive! Baby died; the genes might not survive!
Or
Mommy and Daddy made a baby! Genes survive! Baby grew up and had its own baby! Genes survive more!
That, in fact, is the process of Natural Selection. That is in fact the very process you claim is not possible. Yet it occurs every day. Every time someone is born and dies. Every time any organism at all reproduces, sexually or asexually, that process occurs and applies to the organism until death by definition.
"Oh wait, you are still evolving." Let's put aside that evolution doesn't work like that. You spew ignorance and demand respect for it. Four words: Fuck you, you hypocrite.
Now, now, let's be civil. If you're going to tell someone to go fuck themself, don't do it in anger. Do it because everyone could use a little fun at the end of the day.
@PrometheusWithLight: And just another thought. I wouldn't call people stupid if I were you. You displayed enough ignorance in 20 seconds to make most people blush.
Prometheus; Sorry, I hit post comment by mistake. To continue, Prometheus was given the responsibility to create man, a process which requires intelligence. Why use the name of an intelligent agent, even if mythical, to argue against ID? Also, as you claim, Prometheus is said to have given intelligence to man & as such man's intelligence is the result of ID. Like I said, it just seems contradictory to me.
1. I thanked you for your correction on pronunciation already.
2. I was using the name as a symbol. Prometheus, in the myth, brings man fire, symbolic of basic knowledge. So does my video. I invoke prometheus strictly as a symbol, not as an actual deity. It only seems contradictory because you're not examining the symbol in the way that I intended. You see prometheus as a symbol for god, but I meant to use him as a symbol for myself, thus, why I assumed his name.
@Prometheus; I understand what you're getting at. "Symbol for myself..." This is somewhat presumptuous. To see yourself as a bringer of knowledge in the style of a Prometheus is bordering on delusions of grandeur. From what I've seen of your material you're just not that intelligent. I don't mean that as an insult, it is simply the truth. Your critical thinking skills are just not sharp enough. Sorry.
And yet you've shown the delightful inability to point out exactly how my critical thinking isn't up to snuff. When asked why you said this, you gave me your inability to see Prometheus as a symbol, and the fact that I mispronounced a word. I'm sure you'll forgive me if I give your critique the indifference it deserves.
As for delusions of grandeur, how do you figure? ANYONE can bring man knowledge, I mean, hell, it's so common, have you seen teachers' salaries?
Prometheus; "Anyone can bring... knowledge..." That's true. If you wanted to identify with a well known human teacher that would be fine. But to see your gift of knowledge as being like unto a mythical god is delusional.
The only human teachers that can really be used as symbols are the ones who are exceptionally good anyway; to take on their name would be to imply that I have their skill and knowledge.
No, far better to assume the identity of a fictional being, one which ANYONE can assume (which I believe I said anyway.)
Obtaining knowledge, and distributing it, is, to me, divine. As such, would that not make everyone else who has EVER brought people knowledge just as godly?
Prometheus; "Obtaining knowledge..., You can use whatever identity you wish. Just have fun doing it & be sure to keep your mind open to correction from others who posses knowledge. The best way to obtain knowledge is to earnestly study opposing views. If you do not, you will soon cease to learn. If one ceases to learn or begins to think he no longer needs to learn, he is no longer any good as a teacher.
I do. If my mind were closed, why, I'd've just deleted your posts. It's much more fun and beneficial to argue back and forth.
And yes, believe it or not, I have learned from opposing arguments. One person, a biologist, criticized a point I made in one of my videos. We argued back and forth for about a week, and eventually, he came up with an argument I couldn't beat, so I conceded that he was right, and changed my opinion to accommodate the argument that beat my skepticism.
@Prometheus: "Such as." It's not good from to call people stupid. Remember, calling someone ignorant is not the same as calling them stupid. You displayed ignorance in our pronounceiation & your choice of name. Your aim is to refute ID, yet you choose the name of an intelligent agency in Greek mythology who was given
PrometheusWithLight; Funny you should call yourself Prometheus & use Zarathustra's theme. Have you not one of your own? It's also funny you should choose the name Prometheus to ridicule intelligent design when Prometheus is said to have created man from clay & given him life. Sounds like intelligence to me. It's just a thought, but perhaps you should consider changing your name to one which better reflects your philosophy. This one just makes you look silly. Also, it's pronounced "ed-n-bruh."
No, he made the clay figures, and Athena supposedly blew life into them. That's actually not why I chose him though.
I chose Prometheus as a name because, in each of the myths, he brought man fire, a metaphor for knowledge, science, etc. I also considered the names Zarathustra, Promethea (from the Alan Moore comic,) and Aquarius. I don't use my own name for obvious reasons.
I use "Thus Spake Zarathustra" because I like the book.
Your argument is itself a straw man. DNA can be simulated easily, it's just a base 4 string of numbers, each representing a nucleotide.
If you're arguing that the "mutations" aren't truly random, or that selection isn't truly "natural," you're playing a game of semantics, none of those actually change the fact that the principles involved in both evolution and simulated evolution are quite the same.
There are patterns that all things follow. There are limits as how different a life form can be. This is especially true in the environments life forms develop in.
Evolution isn't entirely random. It is a atheological based development of DNA, yes, but to say that it's entirely without sentient factors is being presumptuous and promoting nonscience . The life form itself is sentient, yes? You completely throw out this factor without even looking deeper into how a life form influences itself.
After life has developed, the sentience which the life form has, increases its ability to the extent where Sentient Selection is simply logical to assume. This is especially true when people abort fetuses affected with down syndrome.
Evolution isn't entirely directed by Natural Selection. Nor is the reproduction process, since the range of the gene pool is limited by physical forms we call bodies
Red heads have an advantage in a line up where I get to take my pick.
Ah, but it all depends on whether or not you consider the effect of humans to be "natural." If predation is natural, why not breeding? But, I digress into a semantics game. The point is, what does this have to do with computer models, exactly? Are you suggesting that the selective process isn't "natural"? It's irrelevant, selective pressure works the same way, whether it's natural or artificial.
Those limits are imposed by natural selection. That's why evolution isn't random at all.
DNA, however, isn't sentient; it doesn't "choose" what mutations to take.
To assert that DNA is sentient because the life form itself is sentient is a reversed fallacy of composition. The wood of a pencil doesn't make dark lines on paper, even though it is part of a pencil.
I really liked your video, nice work. But if you are going to use greek, try to use the original name and not just hit the same keys after changing the language.PROMETHEUS in greek is ΠΡΟΜΗΘΕΥΣ(προμηθεύς), and the keys you need to hit are P-R-O-M-H-U-E-Y-S after you have changed the language of cource. ;-]
Yes, judging from their video, it's implied that they accept microevolution. I figured I wouldn't bother with destroying the "one kind can't become another, there is no macroevolution" argument, as CDK has already done so in several of his videos.
You forgot the most crucial element of the dog argument: If dog breeders *know* you can take a wolf population and breed dogs out of it, that is a direct acknowledgment of microevolution in a system with more than one species. (continued in next comment...)
In dog breeding, there is an intelligent human selecting for preferred traits, but the first steps in the real wolf-taming process were, "If that one doesn't bite me, I won't kill it," followed closely by "If that one doesn't bite me and scares the other animals away, I'll give it some food." It's the beneficial flip side of "If I can't see it, I can't eat it," demonstrated in the greyscale simulation.
No organism would survive natural selection, let alone random mutations.
cmpresents 1 year ago
@cmpresents
I think that statement deserves a "herpy derp." Yes, a single organism that gets naturally selected for death would die. Duh. That's how it works.
As for the mutations, it depends on how many mutations there are. Generally, small mutations are quite survivable, with some increasing the organism's survivability, and some decreasing it by a little bit.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight YOu have a lot of faith.
cmpresents 1 year ago
@cmpresents
Actually, every human has an average of 7 point mutations that weren't present in either parent. In other words, you yourself are evidence that you're wrong. Booya.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@cmpresents "No organism would survive natural selection" This is a nonsensical claim. You are a prime example of an organism surviving natural selection because (assuming your channel gives your actual age) you have had plenty of time to reproduce, and hence pass on your genes to the "next" generation.
The variation that Natural selection 'acts on' comes from "random mutations." The bulk of which actually have no effects.
Learn before you spew bullshit.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56 No, in a sense, he's ultimately right, at least as regards selection. We all get naturally selected sooner or later. That's why the statement deserved a "duh." The species survives, as you astutely point out, by its members reproducing themselves before they too become selected.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight In a sense he's then also ultimately wrong then. The "point" (to be blunt) of natural selection is to select against genes and hence traits that are harmful to a species. The way to do so is to prevent reproduction because reproduction passes the genes to the next generation.
Any member of a species who then passes on its genes has (essentially, especially in the sense used) "survived natural selection". Ergo...
[But that's a predominately-technical approach...]
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56 I'm no prime example. Only in your mind is what you say possible. Learn to respect. Oh wait, you are still evolving.
cmpresents 1 year ago
@cmpresents "I'm no prime example." So then you have no children. Pretty sad, then.
"Only in your mind is what you say possible." Actually it's observed every day by every organism. But since the simple way is too hard for you to understand, here's the retarded way:
Mommy and Daddy made a baby! Baby has Mommy's and Daddy's genes so genes survive! Baby died; the genes might not survive!
Or
Mommy and Daddy made a baby! Genes survive! Baby grew up and had its own baby! Genes survive more!
onijester56 1 year ago
(cont)
That, in fact, is the process of Natural Selection. That is in fact the very process you claim is not possible. Yet it occurs every day. Every time someone is born and dies. Every time any organism at all reproduces, sexually or asexually, that process occurs and applies to the organism until death by definition.
"Oh wait, you are still evolving." Let's put aside that evolution doesn't work like that. You spew ignorance and demand respect for it. Four words: Fuck you, you hypocrite.
onijester56 1 year ago
@onijester56
Now, now, let's be civil. If you're going to tell someone to go fuck themself, don't do it in anger. Do it because everyone could use a little fun at the end of the day.
PrometheusWithLight 1 year ago
@PrometheusWithLight I actually never swear when I am angry...XD
Of course when one asks for what one doesn't deserve, they will only be met (by me) with what they do deserve. Ergo...
onijester56 1 year ago
Did you know, the male human body was more beautiful than a woman's body durring the early greek arts.
I actually don't agree... but then again, I'm bias by the 21st century.
darketernal3 1 year ago
The problem is creationists don't stop to think! lol
kokopingo 1 year ago
This has probably been mentioned to you many many times before, but it's not EE Din Burg, it's Ed In Bur Ruh
Etimos 1 year ago
Given fire to the people!
Hallelujah
MyJimminyCricket 2 years ago
@PrometheusWithLight: And just another thought. I wouldn't call people stupid if I were you. You displayed enough ignorance in 20 seconds to make most people blush.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
Such as?
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
Prometheus; Sorry, I hit post comment by mistake. To continue, Prometheus was given the responsibility to create man, a process which requires intelligence. Why use the name of an intelligent agent, even if mythical, to argue against ID? Also, as you claim, Prometheus is said to have given intelligence to man & as such man's intelligence is the result of ID. Like I said, it just seems contradictory to me.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
1. I thanked you for your correction on pronunciation already.
2. I was using the name as a symbol. Prometheus, in the myth, brings man fire, symbolic of basic knowledge. So does my video. I invoke prometheus strictly as a symbol, not as an actual deity. It only seems contradictory because you're not examining the symbol in the way that I intended. You see prometheus as a symbol for god, but I meant to use him as a symbol for myself, thus, why I assumed his name.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
@Prometheus; I understand what you're getting at. "Symbol for myself..." This is somewhat presumptuous. To see yourself as a bringer of knowledge in the style of a Prometheus is bordering on delusions of grandeur. From what I've seen of your material you're just not that intelligent. I don't mean that as an insult, it is simply the truth. Your critical thinking skills are just not sharp enough. Sorry.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
And yet you've shown the delightful inability to point out exactly how my critical thinking isn't up to snuff. When asked why you said this, you gave me your inability to see Prometheus as a symbol, and the fact that I mispronounced a word. I'm sure you'll forgive me if I give your critique the indifference it deserves.
As for delusions of grandeur, how do you figure? ANYONE can bring man knowledge, I mean, hell, it's so common, have you seen teachers' salaries?
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
Prometheus; "Anyone can bring... knowledge..." That's true. If you wanted to identify with a well known human teacher that would be fine. But to see your gift of knowledge as being like unto a mythical god is delusional.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
The only human teachers that can really be used as symbols are the ones who are exceptionally good anyway; to take on their name would be to imply that I have their skill and knowledge.
No, far better to assume the identity of a fictional being, one which ANYONE can assume (which I believe I said anyway.)
Obtaining knowledge, and distributing it, is, to me, divine. As such, would that not make everyone else who has EVER brought people knowledge just as godly?
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
Prometheus; "Obtaining knowledge..., You can use whatever identity you wish. Just have fun doing it & be sure to keep your mind open to correction from others who posses knowledge. The best way to obtain knowledge is to earnestly study opposing views. If you do not, you will soon cease to learn. If one ceases to learn or begins to think he no longer needs to learn, he is no longer any good as a teacher.
wallyjude3 2 years ago
I do. If my mind were closed, why, I'd've just deleted your posts. It's much more fun and beneficial to argue back and forth.
And yes, believe it or not, I have learned from opposing arguments. One person, a biologist, criticized a point I made in one of my videos. We argued back and forth for about a week, and eventually, he came up with an argument I couldn't beat, so I conceded that he was right, and changed my opinion to accommodate the argument that beat my skepticism.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
@Prometheus: "Such as." It's not good from to call people stupid. Remember, calling someone ignorant is not the same as calling them stupid. You displayed ignorance in our pronounceiation & your choice of name. Your aim is to refute ID, yet you choose the name of an intelligent agency in Greek mythology who was given
wallyjude3 2 years ago
PrometheusWithLight; Funny you should call yourself Prometheus & use Zarathustra's theme. Have you not one of your own? It's also funny you should choose the name Prometheus to ridicule intelligent design when Prometheus is said to have created man from clay & given him life. Sounds like intelligence to me. It's just a thought, but perhaps you should consider changing your name to one which better reflects your philosophy. This one just makes you look silly. Also, it's pronounced "ed-n-bruh."
wallyjude3 2 years ago
No, he made the clay figures, and Athena supposedly blew life into them. That's actually not why I chose him though.
I chose Prometheus as a name because, in each of the myths, he brought man fire, a metaphor for knowledge, science, etc. I also considered the names Zarathustra, Promethea (from the Alan Moore comic,) and Aquarius. I don't use my own name for obvious reasons.
I use "Thus Spake Zarathustra" because I like the book.
Thanks for the pronunciation help. My mistake.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
As much as I think Evolution is true, the OP guy & Prometheus & Edinburgh4 are hilariously stupid..
strawmen of more strawmen.
You cannot make a computer simulation of Evolution and expect people to think this also happens in reality.
Why? Because Computers Are Complex Artificial Machines That Can't Think Or Biologically Develop Their DNA...Because There Isn't Any DNA To Begin With.
It only qualifies as a shitty CYBER device to teach people how Evolution MAY work.
HerrQuixota 2 years ago
The irony is delicious.
Your argument is itself a straw man. DNA can be simulated easily, it's just a base 4 string of numbers, each representing a nucleotide.
If you're arguing that the "mutations" aren't truly random, or that selection isn't truly "natural," you're playing a game of semantics, none of those actually change the fact that the principles involved in both evolution and simulated evolution are quite the same.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
There are patterns that all things follow. There are limits as how different a life form can be. This is especially true in the environments life forms develop in.
Evolution isn't entirely random. It is a atheological based development of DNA, yes, but to say that it's entirely without sentient factors is being presumptuous and promoting nonscience . The life form itself is sentient, yes? You completely throw out this factor without even looking deeper into how a life form influences itself.
HerrQuixota 2 years ago
After life has developed, the sentience which the life form has, increases its ability to the extent where Sentient Selection is simply logical to assume. This is especially true when people abort fetuses affected with down syndrome.
Evolution isn't entirely directed by Natural Selection. Nor is the reproduction process, since the range of the gene pool is limited by physical forms we call bodies
Red heads have an advantage in a line up where I get to take my pick.
HerrQuixota 2 years ago
Ah, but it all depends on whether or not you consider the effect of humans to be "natural." If predation is natural, why not breeding? But, I digress into a semantics game. The point is, what does this have to do with computer models, exactly? Are you suggesting that the selective process isn't "natural"? It's irrelevant, selective pressure works the same way, whether it's natural or artificial.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
Those limits are imposed by natural selection. That's why evolution isn't random at all.
DNA, however, isn't sentient; it doesn't "choose" what mutations to take.
To assert that DNA is sentient because the life form itself is sentient is a reversed fallacy of composition. The wood of a pencil doesn't make dark lines on paper, even though it is part of a pencil.
PrometheusWithLight 2 years ago
I really liked your video, nice work. But if you are going to use greek, try to use the original name and not just hit the same keys after changing the language.PROMETHEUS in greek is ΠΡΟΜΗΘΕΥΣ(προμηθεύς), and the keys you need to hit are P-R-O-M-H-U-E-Y-S after you have changed the language of cource. ;-]
IanGeorgiadis 2 years ago
Just wondering if you really 28...
rb26dett32 3 years ago
21. When I signed up, I just clicked the first birthyear my mouse happened upon.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
well thats better. Sound very young.
rb26dett32 3 years ago
So I've heard.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
Yes, judging from their video, it's implied that they accept microevolution. I figured I wouldn't bother with destroying the "one kind can't become another, there is no macroevolution" argument, as CDK has already done so in several of his videos.
PrometheusWithLight 3 years ago
They teach super macroevolution too!!!! there is a video of it somewhere, its in one of their "evidence museum"
smokingbob34 3 years ago
You forgot the most crucial element of the dog argument: If dog breeders *know* you can take a wolf population and breed dogs out of it, that is a direct acknowledgment of microevolution in a system with more than one species. (continued in next comment...)
gement 3 years ago
In dog breeding, there is an intelligent human selecting for preferred traits, but the first steps in the real wolf-taming process were, "If that one doesn't bite me, I won't kill it," followed closely by "If that one doesn't bite me and scares the other animals away, I'll give it some food." It's the beneficial flip side of "If I can't see it, I can't eat it," demonstrated in the greyscale simulation.
gement 3 years ago