Guys, these simulations were made to show that natural selection works. They are not to prove that it happened, just that it works and is highly plausible.
Discovered in 2003: The underlying law of nature. . Discovered in 2008: The empirical process by which one may identify the underlying law of nature first hand, for oneself. . This knowledge comes with no middleman wearing a fancy hat, cape, scarf, ring or necklace to obey and pay. . Think about it. . The underlying law of nature is the observable, constant, most fundamental way of all things -- all matter, energy, forms, forces, thoughts, behaviour, events and conditions. . Google it.
People its a computer program, programed by humans to perform a certain function. You can even say the program was intelligently designed. Are u allowed to say that? ME THINKS ITS A STRAW MAN, but very assuming.
@benthemiester The program is designed to SIMULATE THE RANDOMNESS OF NATURE. Dumbass. It follows the same basic properties that natural fucking selection uses.
@EricZombie The program is what..... designed? 1. Why not just use random criteria and let the program design itself? 2. How can you create a true simulation program without criteria that is still largely unknown? Such as epigenetic factors, gene expression, unknown regulatory sequences that are still not well understood, or inconsistant molecular clock data just to name a few. Iv'e never seen or heard the term fucken selection in the literature but hey, you learn something new every day.
@benthemiester The program IS designed. To simulate a non-designed system. And, while this program seems to be simple, it eloquently shows how small genetic variations, and environmental selections can affect populations over time.
Hey, want to study self evolving programs? You should get into AI. We start with a few basic rules, and let the program evolve. But, there's a vast difference between simulated intelligence, and the organic network that leads to consciousness. Use it sometime.
@EricZombi "The program IS designed. To simulate a non-designed system"
This is called front loading & u cannot escape that.
"Hey, want to study self evolving programs? We start with a few basic rules"
Start from racemic amino acids & show me how u get to Einstein.
Gates calls the living cell more complex than any program ever written.
If we dont completely understand the genome & especially regulatory sequences then how can u input the proper criteria. I think this is a question fair.
@benthemiester Gates? As in Bill Gates? He's a non-believer in superstitious bullshit. So, if you're claiming his admiration for the complexity of life is a boost for irreducible complexity, you're mistaken.
Reality isn't front loaded. Intricacy does not equal intelligently designed. A program meant to simulate natural laws, in no way supposes that the natural laws require a law giver.
Your attack on science shows your ignorance of it. Research Abiogenesis your own damn self.
damn eric, where the hell you been? i friended you so long ago... and good to see some intelligence on utube...
of course organic chemistry and THE SELFISH GENE (dawkins) don't operate like the flipping of coins and basic mathematical models of chance... memetics outlines this in some almost spooky weird way at times, but if you want to believe life is just as random and nondirected a form of materialism as inanimate objects i guess you really have the backing from the evidence
@EricZombie gates has been on atheist lists, but he is quite sly in his responses, overly diplomatic and wimpy if i am to be honest about it... in reading his responses to these kinds of questions, as a person looking through the atheist lens of interpretations, i'd definitely say he is an atheist, or maybe he wimps out and calls himself an agnostic within inner circles? just a speculation on my part... do you think their might be infinite universes?, whatever infinite really means...
"Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?" interviewer Isaacson asks Gates
"I don't have any evidence on that," answers Gates.
He later states, "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."
- LOL, there is other stuff, but that alone is a classic hilarious Gates response... the rest is much as i said, a kind of "balancing the answer to appease the theists"
i really think this dichotomy of random chance and divine intervention is wanting... it is hard to see any other contrast or developing idea but i really hate dualities and the dumbed down nature of them (nature pun intended)
you fail dude. i would just like to point out that A) between 0:51 and the end of the video, you can actually see the squares go from white to a slight grey. you prove evolution, thanks! and B) look at the slightly lighter color at 0:44 next to 0:24. it is discernibly lighter. you changed the environment before allowing the squares to properly adapt.
No, a dog can't breed with a cat. The offspring of two dogs will share genes from both parents, and yes the offspring will probably stay dogs. However since I know where you're probably headed with this question, evolution states that given enough time the population can gradually change into a new species. This does not happen within one or two generations, but over thousands of years for even small changes to be visible.
I'll add on to what mauri is saying. A long time ago, there were no dogs,only wolves. Then humans came along and chose the least aggressive and most friendly wolves to be their hunting partners/ companions. We bred the most friendly wolves with each other generation after generation until they are the dogs you see today, friendly and reliant on humans. From this example you can understand how dogs and wolves had a "common ancestor." wolves and cats too had a common ancestor, but arent as related
Theory is just a word, a THEORY is actually a scientific truth, it has been tested over and over and over by thousands of scientists and backed up with millions of sets of evidence. so really the word theory is a downplay on how very much proven it actually is. You're not about to dispute the theory of gravity is wrong are you?
How could you possibly compare me to ID idiots? And I have no idea what you are talking about, before someone deleted my comment or marked it as spam I was refering to CDK007's argument that you cant say the theory of evolution doesnt explain the theory of the begining of life because that would be like saying gravity doesnt explain germs. So whoever marked my comment as spam thank you for deleting free speech even when I was on your side of the argument.
And another thing, dont call ID people scientists, they are not nor ever will be a true scientist, because they have yet to show evidence to the scientific community of the validity of their theory, therefore it is not science.
@bftjosh, technically the could be. Most scientists believe or at least think their hypothesis is right before they finish researching evidence for it. I agree that there aren't many if any ID scientists and that the ones that do exist can hardly be called objective, but still.
Love and caring are caused by chemicals and part of the brain. . where do you think they come from? And the latest scientific theory on the evolution of woman is the "Theory of Evolution", you should look it up.
lawl so im guessing your saying that the theory of where emotions come from is completely correct though scientists don't have a complete understanding of the brain and why or how it works? though educated guesses there still guesses
Theories in science aren't "educated guesses".., And there are several different theories about where emotions, although I think it's safe to assume that emotions are caused by chemicals and part of out brain. Do you have a better idea?
@mstachife its amazing how weak love really is, just introduce more powerful satanic biochemistry like meth, crack and heroin and soon discover how much moms and dads really care... i've wondered if love (brain chemistry) can overcome these VERY POWERFUL pleasure creators, usually only when they burn out and have maxed out their "pleasure benefit" and then crash, then they look to their family for love and help - amazing...
I thought this was a tongue in cheek take off on the weird science that was in How Evolution Really Works Part One. I mean, "forest green"? I think all people who try to discuss evolution sound like rational people or, if they're against evolution, they are all fundametalist a--holes. Like Sarah Palin. I guess i got it wrong.
In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Makes perfect sense. LOL.
Christianity:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, GOD created the Heavens and the Earth.
wow, you are wrong on so many levels, it begs to question how you remember to breathe or even pump blood from your heart. I mean, do you normally just misrepresent your opponents ideas all the time while disregarding actual science and then go to a book written over 2000 years ago and say hey look there is the answer. Are you willfully ignorant.
actuall sscience cant be tested and proven. Hitler did an evolution experiment. He sent some of the "Master race" to a secluded villagewhere they lived for several genorations. The result was what I know as natural selection (down ward spiral of genes) mentaly retarded people.
Before you embarrass yourself any further, learn to spell. And where did you learn that natural selection was a downward spiral of genes, second what village did these people live for "several genorations" as you would put it, since Hitler was only in power for a little over a decade. Your facts don't add up, show evidence of this.
Well, At least I spell things out, unlike most people who text talk their comments. Besides, I've allways been bad at spelling. And I'm not really embarising myself. I'm not the one who beleives that the quality of genes goes upward. Because apparently two wrongs make a right in genetics.
Neither do I think the quality of the genes go upward, you are putting a spin on evolution. Evolution deals with change over time, it isn't a ladder and there is no end goal. One creature isn't more evolved than the other. Here is an idea, how about instead of trying to apply a philosophy to science you just focus on what the science says.
the "simple" germ has about 3 1000 page books worth of information. the human has about 99 of these. I want to know how gene flaws add up to 96 books if they're all flaws. Isn't it sad that we have nothing better to do than argue like this?
There you go again, you say flaw but that is an incorrect term. Because flaw implies you have a end goal to achieve, which you don't. You can only say wether a mutation is either beneficial to the organism, harmful to the organism or seems to show little difference in the organism, and to varying degrees of each of these. Besides, you say information but of what information are you speaking of, genes? Including or excluding junk material, define your terms.
In reference to actual science can't be tested ( because proof is a mathematical term) you are flat out wrong. How does your computer work, how do you get power to your house I mean according to you it can't be tested yet all these things were developed with knowledge of science. They are theories in action. Look up quantum theory and the theory of electromagnetism. I mean they don't work right, so why are we able to build things based on what the theories tell us.
the theory that the flaws in genes compound over the generations and that spontanious generation is immpossible prove that evolution is an immpossibility. Those are the numbers they get because thase are the formulas they used . they used those formulas to get the answers they wanted. besides, if the earth is billions of years then the many diffrent paths that could have been taken would result in 1/infinity of this happening. the chance of life is only 1/ 10 to the 500th power.
Show me a single atheist who will make one of these claims.
This has nothing to do with evolution though. Biology is what it is. I think nature is incredible. I am a theist, yet I don't deny what is true... what has been tested time and time again; and what simply IS.
Atheism: The belief that the universe always existed based on the *1st Law of Thermodynamics* and that all matter and all we see was created due to *General Relativity* due to *E=MC²* and that matter formed together due to the *Laws of Gravity* which then mixed and formed rudimentary life vis the *Theory of Abiogenesis* which then diversified and became more complex over time due to the *Theory of Evolutuion*.
Christianity:
The universe was created magically by an all powerful wizard.
Christianity: Created by a supernatural being (not a wizard, wizards are those that try to controll the supernatural God doesn't like that ,so they don;t exist here.)
CHristianity: I believe in an invisible being that made me out of dirt and punished me for not fully understanding that the tree of knowledge is a bad thing to eat from because I lacked aforementioned knowledge in the first place, but not only does he punish me but all my decedents because he is such a swell guy who loves us all so much.
the eating of the tree was called the loss of innocence, they could have figured out the stuff before, but they would not have done all those bad things, yeah I know bad working. He also gave us FREE WILL. which means that religon, money, or anything else you can think of is OUR fault, not God's. He also saaid that he'd step out of the world and let us run thingss, unless he needed to intervein. The Jews in the old testement and Revelation
You have still yet to show evidence for any of this. You keep asserting that this happened and that happened but yet have not provide one piece of hard evidence or a link to a piece of hard evidence. And wrong again about your own religion, it is The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and sometimes translated as The Tree of Conscience. My next post will be a passage from the bible so hold on to your ass.
So you ignore the fact that you were wrong, then say atheism is a religion, its not but if you think so then tell me how it is. You mean there is a hole in the statement, I don't believe in God. Obviously, you don't know what constitutes a religion, they must believe in a deity, must have some tenants, both of which atheism fails. Maybe you should actually learn about what you are talking about before you start to put labels on things. But nice try, and it is the Tree of Knowledge. :)
a RELIGION IS A BELIEF IN ORIGENS. dietys have absolutely nothing to do with it. They are just in the STERIOTYPICAL religons. Not everyone follows the steriotype
wrong, look up the definition of religion and theism, it has nothing to do with origins. Yeah I debunked your Hitler thing which you didn't even give me a source to look up, also atheist don't think life is meaningless, on the contrary life isn't meaningless because its the only one you have, so you better not fuck up.
There was a school shooting and the guy said that he was the higher animal, there for he had the right to kill all those he deemed unfit. Hence, the school shooting.
Can you cite that school shooting, I'm not just going to take your word on it, but even if it happened so what, what is your point, I could point to hundreds of suicide bombings by muslims to show how immoral your religion is, but that would be dis-ingenuous. Do you go around calling the kettle black.
How were they to know it, they had only existed for a very short while, they didn't have text books or anything to learn from. Hell, even God straight up lied to them and told them they would die.
How do you know they didn't know? There is actually an undefined amount of time between creation and the fall where ENTROPY DID NOT EXIST. this means that when God said you will die he ment the Entropy will be introduced to the universe, not you will die immediately.
Ok, so what does entropy have to do with Adam and Eve? You are trying to connect dots that aren't there, besides do you have evidence that entropy didn't exist. Saying someone is going to die and entropy have nothing to do with each other, you are using a law of thermodynamics out of the context in which it is used. But, even by your argument they didn't die immediately after they were kicked out of Eden. Face it, god lied and the devil was the only one willing to tell them the truth.
the introduction of entropy eventually rought their death several hunderd years later. You do realize that by saying the devil told them the truth that you're addmiting that he existed. /you're still not getting that before they ate the fruit the only things that died were the plants that were used for food.
But you didn't say several hundred years later, you said immediately, also do you have proof they lived for several hundred years. Also, entropy only applies to closed systems, the human body isn't a closed system, and death has nothing to do with thermodynamics. And, you are still not getting that the Garden of Eden never fucking existed. Do you have evidence of it existing, can you point on a map and show me where the garden is that is guarded by an angel.
You do realize that when I said the devil was telling them the truth I did so under the sake of argument... right. I was arguing on the grounds that if A. God existed and B. if the bible stories are true then C. God lied outright and the devil told them the truth. I think that was a little intellectual dishonesty on your part, but try again.
Also, you still haven't responded to my question, what do you define as information are you including junk Dna. I suspect you don't know much about evolution since you keep trying to put some sort of philosophy on top of it, which is what hitler did to try and justify ethnic cleansing and the master race. I'm not saying you are Hitler or like Hitler in any other regard as that you both tend to turn science into a philosophy.
Hitler acctually did an experiment on evolution, but that was in one of my previos arguments. Also the athistic veiw on life is that life is meaningless. Now how many school shootings were caused because of that. Hitler did what many other people have done use the "science" of evolution to support their goal, which is really easy because there are no moral values in athism
First off, Hitler wasn't an atheist he was a catholic. Second, I could say christians have terrible moral values, especially if you take your morals from the Bible. What Hitler did with evolution is he derived a philosophy from it, which you shouldn't do with any science, because science doesn't deal with philosophy.
so were most of the southern americans, but evolution was still used to justify slavery of black people. Darwin himself was a racist. He said in one of his lesser know books that he'd rather be decended form an ape than a dark skined man.
So what if Darwin was a racist, it doesn't discredit his ideas, his ideas stand and fall on their own. Did you know Martin Luther King was a womanizer, that doesn't discredit his thoughts on all men should be treated equal. Besides, the bible was used to give credit to slavery, it even tells you how to own and operate a slave.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You're confusing Christianity with ainchent Judaism. In the end Darwin started to doubt his own ideas. HE DID NOT TURN BACK TO CHRISTIANITY. there was another evolutionist that thought proteins could put themselves together, hereby jumping the spontaneous gereation hurdle, but he realized that this was impossible latter on.
The bible is the bible, Old and New alike, if they didn't except the old testament then why put it in the fucking bible, and they did use those passages to justify slavery. When did Darwin start to doubt his own theory, do you have a citation, because so far you keep asserting things without giving a citation. Also, it has been shown in labs that proteins can assemble into Amino Acids and the Amino Acids can assemble into peptides. (Sidney W. Fox's experiment)
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; (this isn't the full passage it wouldn't fit but you get the gist)
The claim about Darwin doubting his ideas is a lie that has no evidence to support it. There is no such thing as an evolutionist.The 'ist' part implies a religion, or for the need of blind belief like a religion, while the theory of evolution is based on observable evidence, quite the opposite of blind faith. Why do you act like you know something about evolution when you clearly know jack shit about it, and feel qualified to refute the vast majority of educated professional scientists? Think.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. The whole dying part was a flat out lie on his part, because they did eat and didn't die.
ProudToBLoud seems to have trouble with the concept of an analogy. Not surprising though since most fundies seem to have trouble with the concept of metaphor too.
Proud to Bloud, you seem to be criticizing everyone for their possessive lack of a Nobel Prize. Is every Nobel prize recipient as retarded as you or is it that you are an inbred degenerate? Damn, your parents had to be twins to get a kid as stupid as you. And you seem to be a Luddite as well because of your fear of computers.
Looks like someone retained their single celled intelligence.
heavyordance, people resort to ad hominem when the facts are against them, if it hurts your faith for somebody to make a comment against it, then your over emotional reaction just shows how little substance your position holds
thats ok but if you want a little light relief when you are feeling a bit edgy then you should check out some of richard dawkins videos, the comedy value from his weak arguments are great for breaking the tension.
The one thing you're ignoring ProudToBLoud...is that these formulae are only possible with our observations of the natural world. We see it happening in the natural world and can thus make a formula that fits to what is already happening.
Your logic is faulty, and the program exhibited in this video is a great explanation for the basics of evolution theory. It's only too bad that some people refuse to understand it.
if you have a formula for evolution then go get the nobel prize, the fact you created the program and are also running it on a computer that was also created by humans is a problem in the first instance.
Yeah, you are Right. I wanted to say AD (my home language is Spanish, AC is AD in Spanish. Sorry.) I won't say that I believe in evolution, I think it is the best explanation for the diversity of life on the Earth.
This REALLY annoys me. Not only is evolution absolutely explained about twenty times over people still don't understand. IT'S NOT RANDOMNESS AND CHANCE - it's natural selection. There are random mutations but the bad ones are filtered out by NATURAL SELECTION. Good mutations are more common because the organism with a good mutation breeds more often and passes on the beneficial mutations.
Or god did it - your choice. But don't be ignorant of the facts and evidence. It really doesn't look good.
Correct. Selection is somewhat like a filter, a fitness filter tuned to the environment the organism lives in. The parameters for this filter are not random, only the mutations and the rest of the genome of an organism are. Only individuals that meet the filter parameters tend to get through, the others are left as 'noise' on the other side of the filter (ie - they are selected against)
You'd be a fool to even use those words in mathematics. "
Incorrect. Randomness and chance are perfectly valid mathematical concepts. You'd have to be a fool, or at least unfamiliar with maths, to claim otherwise.
Randomness is used in evolution to model the effects that cause variation, since these are largely unpredictable things like radiation or sexual pairing. Variation, however, is not evolution without selection.
"Is there a machine on the planet that is capable of creating another machine that is greater than itself?"
While you will say I'm dodging the question, I'm simply pointing out that your question bares no relevance to the issue of natural selection and evolution. Also, all machines on this planet are man-made, so you're already there using a flawed set of parameters for your reasoning. You use complexity as evidence of intention, while there is no intention present in natural selection.
I just found that there are such machines (or actually programs)... they start of by randomly putting code together, then they mate (by exchanging part of their code tree with another program), then random mutation occurs, then they're tested for fitness (natural selection). The ones that provide the closest answer are allowed to mate again and their children go the same process until one of these programs finally provides the best or better answer. Two new patentable ideas were discovered!
"What other professional field credits it's results to "RANDOMNESS AND CHANCE"?"
You should read about Genetic Programming, where applications create themselves, no programmer writes them, and they have come up with 2 new patentable ideas... all using the principles of evolution. It really is something from nothing, all based on random chance :). An application randomly changes itself, breeds with other programs, and EVOLVES until it fits the selection criteria... truly amazing!
Yes. Actually, each new generation of computers is designed by the previous generation of computers. There's a simple way to measure how much "greater" these new computers are than the computers that designed them--just measure the speed with which each one processes data.
This completely demolishes the philosophical idea that a designer can only design things that are simpler than the designer itself. It's unfounded and leads to false conclusions about life and the universe.
Each new generation of computers is designed by humans using the previous generation of computers as a tool. Computers still can't design, except in some simple cases, like in design using genetic programming. The results, though, are quite simpler than the computer itself.
If you don't think something complex can come our of the inherent dynamics of a simple system you've never seen the equation for mandelbrot fractals.
You could write it on the back of your hand but all of the matter and energy in the universe would not be enough to represent the entire fractal set in perfect detail.
Of course someone had to design the equation, but if you attempt to apply the same reasoning to creationism you just end up asking what designed god. Dead end. Logical absurdity.
Yeah! That Predetor prey thing is just a small part of it too. Imagine programing all different aspects of this matter and then applying them all together. Allowing for variables to be changed based on environmental conditions. It could get very dynamic. And if it was down well enough and thorough enough one could plug in an ecosystem and get a rough Idea in how it will evolve. Crazy! :b
Imagine if the preditors could evolve the same way the prey dose. They too would evolve to be more camoflauged in order to hunt better. Now if this is so, then the % rate of predetor kills would increase. This would decrease the population of the prey. Now once the prey population decreases there is less food for the predetors. The random dying variable can increase % with the demand for food. The prey too would be subjected to this. Thus, the predetor pop. drops allowing the prey to repop..
haha. yeah. I actually just found someone to help me design graphics. I've just been slammed in other areas of my life. Between 18 credits at college and working seven days a week, sometimes, I haven't had any time to fiddle with my personal projects. It'll come someday, though, I promise. Stay tuned.
The thing with evolution programs is that if there is software that can evolve machines why do the people not think of evolving great inventions by making what they want the machine to do a benifit to survival? Maybe if you want a car the one that survives is able to move the farest in the least time and then is copyed a 1mil x and slightly changed each time and the software just does that until the user decides to stop or all the machines are at the best they will get for the evironmental need.
... Which is exactly how genetic algorithms are applied in the industry.
The difficult parts of a GA are setting up a the method of generating the "individual" from the "DNA" in a way that allows mutations to flow naturally, and subsequently judging the fitness of each individual. The latter has to be a 100% automated process. So if you could simply let fitness = coolness, then you could evolve a cool looking car, but the computer has to be able to judge fitness with zero human input.
The GA has to be applied to an aspect that has a clear measure of fitness, such as aerodynamics. Less air resistance = more fitness, that's a good starting point for GA development. Then of course you run into the problem of the sheer amount of processing involved in running fluid simulations (nontrivial in itself) on thousands of shapes over thousands of generations, but make no mistake, GAs are used in the automotive industry for solving all kinds of problems, often related to fuel efficiency.
If computers were, say, trillions of times faster, then we could "easily" use GAs and physics simulations to evolve brand new cars with entirely new types of engines and so on, but they won't be for another.. uhm.. well 60 years. ;)
It does if you create virtual cars that are constructed from a virtual genetic code. The point is that using a physics simulation in the fitness measure ensures that if a virtual car is "good", then a real-life copy of it would also be "good".
The real-life copy would not be built from "DNA" but in factories. To ensure that manufacturing is easy, the fitness measure could include an evaluation of the parts from a manufacturing perspective.
Ok a cell from the outside to the inside has the following components: plasma cell membrane, endoplasmic reticulum, ribosome, lysosome, mitochondria, golgi and nucleus. They each have unique functions and still display an interdependence in the whole. For instance golgi process and amalgamate the macromolecules such as proteins and lipids. It is in everyway inconceivable to rationalize that design is not at the starting point of any discussion on origins. It's like saying lap-tops just evolve.
Because something is complex, it can cast the illusion that it is designed, though that does not make it so. I'm not quite sure what your point is about the cell parts -- are you arguing for irreducible complexity?
Either way, it's not like saying laptops evolve. There are some key differences. Laptops do not mate. The parts of laptops do not have natural affinities for one another. Laptops are not subject to natural selection. Most importantly, laptops are not ALIVE.
And are therefore not applicable to Evolutionary theory... It's amazing how some people still compare inanimate, man-made objects to living, natural organisms (Kent Hovind, anyone?)
The sad part is, that no matter how often you tell people that comparing man-made structures to living organisms is a horrible analogy, they'll plug their ears and say "John 3:16" before reasserting the comparison all over again.
Look guys I don't see how a belief in the Pesonal/Infinite is hard to accept. To accept the existence of a personal universe doesn't change natural laws like photosythesis, entropy, thermodynamics or gravity. To believe in a Designer doesn't alter how the systems of the body work. Anyway, I find that evolutionist are constantly using words like engineered, designed, built, devised and arranged in their presentations and manuscripts anyway. Alsom my apologies for sounding sarcastic on Saturday.
Belief in a designer doesn't alter reality. It just presents you with a whole bunch of questions you have to look for really far-fetched answers to, while at the same time it denies you a workable scientific model you can use to actually understand life.
And nobody is arguing against belief in God. But believing in God also does not change the fact that life evolves over time and that this is the ONLY theory explaining how we got here that stands up to the evidence we have.
The Biblical account simply doesn't match the evidence. And we're not talking about minor discrepancies but fundamental differences. To accept the Bible as literally true you'd have to reject almost all of science and approach the physical evidence that remains with only the intent of fitting it to predrawn conclusions using tortured logic.
Why not simplify the concept of evolution so that hadjuk0010 and i could appreciate it better rather than focus more on the technical aspect of cdk007's vid? but i appreciate your efforts in showing the "errors" of the previous vid so i gave you 5 for that...but cdk007 has simply demonstrated why and how evolution works!
As with anything you don't understand, you should try to learn as much as you can about it to further your comprehension. All you need is an open mind.
Yeah, it's pretty difficult to imagine how larger brains could be beneficial. I guess you'd have to have one to figure it out.
But really, ad hominems aside, I've linked a chart for you. It illustrates how brain size has increased from rodent-like mammals to the Australopithecus family groups (90MYA-1MYA) and then from the Australopithecus to Homo (1MYA-Present)
ww w. geocities . com/mechaclash/braininess . JPG
Fossils depict a steady growth in brain size over the past 100,000,000 years...
...I'd post more charts with similar comparisons, but you probably wouldn't bother with them, anyway. In the Ancestor's Tale, there's a few chapters dedicated solely to the evolution of our brains. Now, this is a book that chronicles our evolution from single-celled organisms, so I'm sure if you read something more specific, you'll find way more than 50 pages on the subject. Either way, the facts are out there. Find them before you start making foolish statements.
Evolution and theism are not mutually exclusive; see, for instance, Theodore Dobzhansky. If, in regards to Darwin, you are referring to his supposed deathbed conversion and renunciation of his theory (the Lady Hope story) it is a myth, and was demonstrated to be so more than a century ago. Even the creationist group Answers in Genesis admits it- check out their webpage titled "Arguments we think creationists should not use"
all this shows is that things adapt to their environments, not actually changing. this is like saying asian people, black people, and white people are all different species.
Since when is changing colors not "actually changing"? Is an Artic Wolf not a different species from the Gray Wolf? They're both wolves, but their different evironments cause natural selection to favor different colors of fur. Same with people. We're all people, but different conditions in different continents have favored different skin pigmentations.
You're right, it doesn't. All it proves is that any species of organism will change and evolve when living in a competitive environment. Now, my NEXT program (and that's not the one I was talking about in this video's info section,) will show how species of today's world can evolve from single-celled organisms.
You should be banned from using computers. If you're too thick-headed to comprehend what my program illustrates, don't post comments until you've done yourself some studying. If you prefer to live in ignorance, it's fine with me, so long as you keep it to yourself.
when all you can do is insult people you have proven you have nothing left to say. you cannot prove it, that is why it is a theory. i will keep my beliefs that humans did not come from single celled organisms, and you can keep your belief that they did.
What evidence, exactly, do you base your belief on? It would have to be pretty strong to reject offhand the evidence that a century and a half of biology has provided. As for the insult you have perceived, forgive us- those of us who have taken the time to understand the world around us, indeed, who sometimes consider it to be god's primary work, often have little patience for those who run their mouths without taking the time to understand the relevent issues.
That's all well and good in its respective domain, but ToE is a part of science, where it is evidence and observation, not faith, which count. If you are criticizing the above video for not providing "proof," you are entering the domain of science, where an informed critique of evidence is what matters- do you have any of that?
well, i believe that things do have the ability to adapt to their environments, not change completely. i use the example of skin tones. things do not change into completely different things. in the context of this program, if those numbers were to increase by one set (meaning if instead of 158, 104, 160 it would say 158, 104, 160, 112) that would be what people consider evolution. any person know that this will never occur in that simulation, so who's to say it will happen with living beings?
I'm not sure that I understand your argument- are you saying that evolution is constrained by certain factors? Well yes, no one doubts that- see, for example, the scaling problem. But no one has ever demonstrated, to my knowledge, that the constraints are severe enough to prohibit the evolution of observed life forms.
As for your example, keep in mind that the simulation is meant to model an aspect of biology, and for the sake of clarity it simplifies the issue- the genes are represented as a 3-tuple, not as a sugar-phosphate nucleic acid in a biochemical environment, and therefor they behave as such.
In real life, much more complex, I see no reason why your example couldn't occur as, say, the duplication and successive mutation of one of the genes represented by a number- do you? In biology, what sort of thing would you see as analogous to increasing the size of an array in the simulation, and why?
Don't go insulting my program, again. Believe it or not, I had the foresight to calculate the effect of faith in my code. Every iteration/ generation, exactly zero lines of code are factored into the results, which is the exact same impact your faith has on real organisms.
WE MEN HAVE NIPPLES EVOLUTION IS PROVEN
iliveon 6 months ago
Alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
Guys, these simulations were made to show that natural selection works. They are not to prove that it happened, just that it works and is highly plausible.
copilot10 1 year ago
@copilot10 fair enough
glorp896 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
People its a computer program, programed by humans to perform a certain function. You can even say the program was intelligently designed. Are u allowed to say that? ME THINKS ITS A STRAW MAN, but very assuming.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester To clarify, this program WAS intelligently designed..
JunoRulz 1 year ago
@benthemiester The program is designed to SIMULATE THE RANDOMNESS OF NATURE. Dumbass. It follows the same basic properties that natural fucking selection uses.
EricZombie 1 year ago
@EricZombie The program is what..... designed? 1. Why not just use random criteria and let the program design itself? 2. How can you create a true simulation program without criteria that is still largely unknown? Such as epigenetic factors, gene expression, unknown regulatory sequences that are still not well understood, or inconsistant molecular clock data just to name a few. Iv'e never seen or heard the term fucken selection in the literature but hey, you learn something new every day.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester The program IS designed. To simulate a non-designed system. And, while this program seems to be simple, it eloquently shows how small genetic variations, and environmental selections can affect populations over time.
Hey, want to study self evolving programs? You should get into AI. We start with a few basic rules, and let the program evolve. But, there's a vast difference between simulated intelligence, and the organic network that leads to consciousness. Use it sometime.
EricZombie 1 year ago
@EricZombi "The program IS designed. To simulate a non-designed system"
This is called front loading & u cannot escape that.
"Hey, want to study self evolving programs? We start with a few basic rules"
Start from racemic amino acids & show me how u get to Einstein.
Gates calls the living cell more complex than any program ever written.
If we dont completely understand the genome & especially regulatory sequences then how can u input the proper criteria. I think this is a question fair.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Gates? As in Bill Gates? He's a non-believer in superstitious bullshit. So, if you're claiming his admiration for the complexity of life is a boost for irreducible complexity, you're mistaken.
Reality isn't front loaded. Intricacy does not equal intelligently designed. A program meant to simulate natural laws, in no way supposes that the natural laws require a law giver.
Your attack on science shows your ignorance of it. Research Abiogenesis your own damn self.
EricZombie 1 year ago
@EricZombie
damn eric, where the hell you been? i friended you so long ago... and good to see some intelligence on utube...
of course organic chemistry and THE SELFISH GENE (dawkins) don't operate like the flipping of coins and basic mathematical models of chance... memetics outlines this in some almost spooky weird way at times, but if you want to believe life is just as random and nondirected a form of materialism as inanimate objects i guess you really have the backing from the evidence
glorp896 1 year ago
@EricZombie gates has been on atheist lists, but he is quite sly in his responses, overly diplomatic and wimpy if i am to be honest about it... in reading his responses to these kinds of questions, as a person looking through the atheist lens of interpretations, i'd definitely say he is an atheist, or maybe he wimps out and calls himself an agnostic within inner circles? just a speculation on my part... do you think their might be infinite universes?, whatever infinite really means...
glorp896 1 year ago
@Eric
"Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?" interviewer Isaacson asks Gates
"I don't have any evidence on that," answers Gates.
He later states, "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."
- LOL, there is other stuff, but that alone is a classic hilarious Gates response... the rest is much as i said, a kind of "balancing the answer to appease the theists"
glorp896 1 year ago
@EricZombie i balk at this statement, i'll run it by a utube genius, DJNROSS
glorp896 1 year ago
@EricZombie
i really think this dichotomy of random chance and divine intervention is wanting... it is hard to see any other contrast or developing idea but i really hate dualities and the dumbed down nature of them (nature pun intended)
glorp896 1 year ago
you fail dude. i would just like to point out that A) between 0:51 and the end of the video, you can actually see the squares go from white to a slight grey. you prove evolution, thanks! and B) look at the slightly lighter color at 0:44 next to 0:24. it is discernibly lighter. you changed the environment before allowing the squares to properly adapt.
HeywoodJablowem 1 year ago
the link is dead
biscoito1r 1 year ago
1st i wanna ask can a dog breed with a cat if not and he only breeding with other dogs arnt the offspring going to stay dogs?
JonnyVsEvolution 2 years ago
No, a dog can't breed with a cat. The offspring of two dogs will share genes from both parents, and yes the offspring will probably stay dogs. However since I know where you're probably headed with this question, evolution states that given enough time the population can gradually change into a new species. This does not happen within one or two generations, but over thousands of years for even small changes to be visible.
mstachife 2 years ago
I'm calling poe's law on you.
manhunt48 2 years ago
@JonnyVsEvolution dogs used to be wolves and we kept selecting them until they became dogs
mauriciohavok 2 years ago
I'll add on to what mauri is saying. A long time ago, there were no dogs,only wolves. Then humans came along and chose the least aggressive and most friendly wolves to be their hunting partners/ companions. We bred the most friendly wolves with each other generation after generation until they are the dogs you see today, friendly and reliant on humans. From this example you can understand how dogs and wolves had a "common ancestor." wolves and cats too had a common ancestor, but arent as related
thieflord555 1 year ago
Im just waiting for someone to say...
"This doesnt prove anything, they are still squares!"
Allking4 2 years ago
when will u guys ever get it right..and prove it scientifically??????
screw theroy!!
it's like debating 'who's wearing the best shoes"
get it proven...geezzzzz
baysideful 2 years ago
It HAS been proven. If a mutation can happen (they do happen) then evolution HAS to be real.. It is inevitable.
verzen 2 years ago
Theory is just a word, a THEORY is actually a scientific truth, it has been tested over and over and over by thousands of scientists and backed up with millions of sets of evidence. so really the word theory is a downplay on how very much proven it actually is. You're not about to dispute the theory of gravity is wrong are you?
bftjosh 2 years ago
@bftjosh
so use the theory of gravity to point your case?
failed
Use another point. You remind me of these ID scientist.
CloudsofBliss 2 years ago
How could you possibly compare me to ID idiots? And I have no idea what you are talking about, before someone deleted my comment or marked it as spam I was refering to CDK007's argument that you cant say the theory of evolution doesnt explain the theory of the begining of life because that would be like saying gravity doesnt explain germs. So whoever marked my comment as spam thank you for deleting free speech even when I was on your side of the argument.
bftjosh 2 years ago
And another thing, dont call ID people scientists, they are not nor ever will be a true scientist, because they have yet to show evidence to the scientific community of the validity of their theory, therefore it is not science.
bftjosh 2 years ago
@bftjosh, technically the could be. Most scientists believe or at least think their hypothesis is right before they finish researching evidence for it. I agree that there aren't many if any ID scientists and that the ones that do exist can hardly be called objective, but still.
Houshalter 1 year ago
Questions: Where did the capacity to love and care come from? What is the latest theory on the evolution of woman?
ecapa0020 2 years ago
Love and caring are caused by chemicals and part of the brain. . where do you think they come from? And the latest scientific theory on the evolution of woman is the "Theory of Evolution", you should look it up.
mstachife 2 years ago 11
lawl so im guessing your saying that the theory of where emotions come from is completely correct though scientists don't have a complete understanding of the brain and why or how it works? though educated guesses there still guesses
JonnyVsEvolution 2 years ago
Theories in science aren't "educated guesses".., And there are several different theories about where emotions, although I think it's safe to assume that emotions are caused by chemicals and part of out brain. Do you have a better idea?
mstachife 2 years ago
*emotions come from*
mstachife 2 years ago
@mstachife its amazing how weak love really is, just introduce more powerful satanic biochemistry like meth, crack and heroin and soon discover how much moms and dads really care... i've wondered if love (brain chemistry) can overcome these VERY POWERFUL pleasure creators, usually only when they burn out and have maxed out their "pleasure benefit" and then crash, then they look to their family for love and help - amazing...
glorp896 1 year ago
Social interaction.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Chemical contributions within the brain.
verzen 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Empiric evidence for evolution at its finest.
You created a world according to the laws you wanted to demonstrate evolution. Aren't those also called video games?
jonatbmounts 2 years ago
Man, are you people still debating this crap? I guess it is a pretty sweet program but my DS game is soooo much more awesome.
JunoRulz 2 years ago
I must say that this is a PERFECT response to H. E. REALLY W. P. 1. Thanks!
ringu 2 years ago
Didnt get that at all
markgg1 2 years ago
I thought this was a tongue in cheek take off on the weird science that was in How Evolution Really Works Part One. I mean, "forest green"? I think all people who try to discuss evolution sound like rational people or, if they're against evolution, they are all fundametalist a--holes. Like Sarah Palin. I guess i got it wrong.
ringu 2 years ago
Atheism:
In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing exploded, and created everything. Then, the nothing that became everything magically rearranged itself for no reason into self-replicating complex life forms, that became intelligent beings that believed in God. Makes perfect sense. LOL.
Christianity:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, GOD created the Heavens and the Earth.
Works for me.
have any question msg me!
adrisan2006 2 years ago
wow, you are wrong on so many levels, it begs to question how you remember to breathe or even pump blood from your heart. I mean, do you normally just misrepresent your opponents ideas all the time while disregarding actual science and then go to a book written over 2000 years ago and say hey look there is the answer. Are you willfully ignorant.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
actuall sscience cant be tested and proven. Hitler did an evolution experiment. He sent some of the "Master race" to a secluded villagewhere they lived for several genorations. The result was what I know as natural selection (down ward spiral of genes) mentaly retarded people.
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
Before you embarrass yourself any further, learn to spell. And where did you learn that natural selection was a downward spiral of genes, second what village did these people live for "several genorations" as you would put it, since Hitler was only in power for a little over a decade. Your facts don't add up, show evidence of this.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
Well, At least I spell things out, unlike most people who text talk their comments. Besides, I've allways been bad at spelling. And I'm not really embarising myself. I'm not the one who beleives that the quality of genes goes upward. Because apparently two wrongs make a right in genetics.
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
Neither do I think the quality of the genes go upward, you are putting a spin on evolution. Evolution deals with change over time, it isn't a ladder and there is no end goal. One creature isn't more evolved than the other. Here is an idea, how about instead of trying to apply a philosophy to science you just focus on what the science says.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
the "simple" germ has about 3 1000 page books worth of information. the human has about 99 of these. I want to know how gene flaws add up to 96 books if they're all flaws. Isn't it sad that we have nothing better to do than argue like this?
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
There you go again, you say flaw but that is an incorrect term. Because flaw implies you have a end goal to achieve, which you don't. You can only say wether a mutation is either beneficial to the organism, harmful to the organism or seems to show little difference in the organism, and to varying degrees of each of these. Besides, you say information but of what information are you speaking of, genes? Including or excluding junk material, define your terms.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
In reference to actual science can't be tested ( because proof is a mathematical term) you are flat out wrong. How does your computer work, how do you get power to your house I mean according to you it can't be tested yet all these things were developed with knowledge of science. They are theories in action. Look up quantum theory and the theory of electromagnetism. I mean they don't work right, so why are we able to build things based on what the theories tell us.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
the theory that the flaws in genes compound over the generations and that spontanious generation is immpossible prove that evolution is an immpossibility. Those are the numbers they get because thase are the formulas they used . they used those formulas to get the answers they wanted. besides, if the earth is billions of years then the many diffrent paths that could have been taken would result in 1/infinity of this happening. the chance of life is only 1/ 10 to the 500th power.
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
lol, you copied that off of VFX's channel.
YoeriYoeri 2 years ago
Show me a single atheist who will make one of these claims.
This has nothing to do with evolution though. Biology is what it is. I think nature is incredible. I am a theist, yet I don't deny what is true... what has been tested time and time again; and what simply IS.
herbiethebarber 2 years ago
Atheism: The belief that the universe always existed based on the *1st Law of Thermodynamics* and that all matter and all we see was created due to *General Relativity* due to *E=MC²* and that matter formed together due to the *Laws of Gravity* which then mixed and formed rudimentary life vis the *Theory of Abiogenesis* which then diversified and became more complex over time due to the *Theory of Evolutuion*.
Christianity:
The universe was created magically by an all powerful wizard.
r00tcause 2 years ago
Atheism: Sheer dumb luck
Christianity: Created by a supernatural being (not a wizard, wizards are those that try to controll the supernatural God doesn't like that ,so they don;t exist here.)
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
Atheism: I don't believe in God.
CHristianity: I believe in an invisible being that made me out of dirt and punished me for not fully understanding that the tree of knowledge is a bad thing to eat from because I lacked aforementioned knowledge in the first place, but not only does he punish me but all my decedents because he is such a swell guy who loves us all so much.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
the eating of the tree was called the loss of innocence, they could have figured out the stuff before, but they would not have done all those bad things, yeah I know bad working. He also gave us FREE WILL. which means that religon, money, or anything else you can think of is OUR fault, not God's. He also saaid that he'd step out of the world and let us run thingss, unless he needed to intervein. The Jews in the old testement and Revelation
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
You have still yet to show evidence for any of this. You keep asserting that this happened and that happened but yet have not provide one piece of hard evidence or a link to a piece of hard evidence. And wrong again about your own religion, it is The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and sometimes translated as The Tree of Conscience. My next post will be a passage from the bible so hold on to your ass.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
Hold on to my ass? Your the one who'se having the holes of his religon pointed out. Athiesm, holier than swiss cheese
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
So you ignore the fact that you were wrong, then say atheism is a religion, its not but if you think so then tell me how it is. You mean there is a hole in the statement, I don't believe in God. Obviously, you don't know what constitutes a religion, they must believe in a deity, must have some tenants, both of which atheism fails. Maybe you should actually learn about what you are talking about before you start to put labels on things. But nice try, and it is the Tree of Knowledge. :)
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
a RELIGION IS A BELIEF IN ORIGENS. dietys have absolutely nothing to do with it. They are just in the STERIOTYPICAL religons. Not everyone follows the steriotype
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
wrong, look up the definition of religion and theism, it has nothing to do with origins. Yeah I debunked your Hitler thing which you didn't even give me a source to look up, also atheist don't think life is meaningless, on the contrary life isn't meaningless because its the only one you have, so you better not fuck up.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
There was a school shooting and the guy said that he was the higher animal, there for he had the right to kill all those he deemed unfit. Hence, the school shooting.
Do you go around looking for these arguments?
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
Can you cite that school shooting, I'm not just going to take your word on it, but even if it happened so what, what is your point, I could point to hundreds of suicide bombings by muslims to show how immoral your religion is, but that would be dis-ingenuous. Do you go around calling the kettle black.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
The tree of knowledge of good and evil. They might have known the stuff before, but they didn't know if it was good or evil
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
How were they to know it, they had only existed for a very short while, they didn't have text books or anything to learn from. Hell, even God straight up lied to them and told them they would die.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
How do you know they didn't know? There is actually an undefined amount of time between creation and the fall where ENTROPY DID NOT EXIST. this means that when God said you will die he ment the Entropy will be introduced to the universe, not you will die immediately.
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
Ok, so what does entropy have to do with Adam and Eve? You are trying to connect dots that aren't there, besides do you have evidence that entropy didn't exist. Saying someone is going to die and entropy have nothing to do with each other, you are using a law of thermodynamics out of the context in which it is used. But, even by your argument they didn't die immediately after they were kicked out of Eden. Face it, god lied and the devil was the only one willing to tell them the truth.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
the introduction of entropy eventually rought their death several hunderd years later. You do realize that by saying the devil told them the truth that you're addmiting that he existed. /you're still not getting that before they ate the fruit the only things that died were the plants that were used for food.
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
But you didn't say several hundred years later, you said immediately, also do you have proof they lived for several hundred years. Also, entropy only applies to closed systems, the human body isn't a closed system, and death has nothing to do with thermodynamics. And, you are still not getting that the Garden of Eden never fucking existed. Do you have evidence of it existing, can you point on a map and show me where the garden is that is guarded by an angel.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
You do realize that when I said the devil was telling them the truth I did so under the sake of argument... right. I was arguing on the grounds that if A. God existed and B. if the bible stories are true then C. God lied outright and the devil told them the truth. I think that was a little intellectual dishonesty on your part, but try again.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
Also, you still haven't responded to my question, what do you define as information are you including junk Dna. I suspect you don't know much about evolution since you keep trying to put some sort of philosophy on top of it, which is what hitler did to try and justify ethnic cleansing and the master race. I'm not saying you are Hitler or like Hitler in any other regard as that you both tend to turn science into a philosophy.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
Hitler acctually did an experiment on evolution, but that was in one of my previos arguments. Also the athistic veiw on life is that life is meaningless. Now how many school shootings were caused because of that. Hitler did what many other people have done use the "science" of evolution to support their goal, which is really easy because there are no moral values in athism
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
First off, Hitler wasn't an atheist he was a catholic. Second, I could say christians have terrible moral values, especially if you take your morals from the Bible. What Hitler did with evolution is he derived a philosophy from it, which you shouldn't do with any science, because science doesn't deal with philosophy.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
so were most of the southern americans, but evolution was still used to justify slavery of black people. Darwin himself was a racist. He said in one of his lesser know books that he'd rather be decended form an ape than a dark skined man.
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
So what if Darwin was a racist, it doesn't discredit his ideas, his ideas stand and fall on their own. Did you know Martin Luther King was a womanizer, that doesn't discredit his thoughts on all men should be treated equal. Besides, the bible was used to give credit to slavery, it even tells you how to own and operate a slave.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're confusing Christianity with ainchent Judaism. In the end Darwin started to doubt his own ideas. HE DID NOT TURN BACK TO CHRISTIANITY. there was another evolutionist that thought proteins could put themselves together, hereby jumping the spontaneous gereation hurdle, but he realized that this was impossible latter on.
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
The bible is the bible, Old and New alike, if they didn't except the old testament then why put it in the fucking bible, and they did use those passages to justify slavery. When did Darwin start to doubt his own theory, do you have a citation, because so far you keep asserting things without giving a citation. Also, it has been shown in labs that proteins can assemble into Amino Acids and the Amino Acids can assemble into peptides. (Sidney W. Fox's experiment)
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
Pure rationality... I love it!
Add me BobtheNarc
These pesky creationists need a dose of logic once in a while
markgg1 2 years ago 4
Slavery in the New Testament.
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; (this isn't the full passage it wouldn't fit but you get the gist)
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
The claim about Darwin doubting his ideas is a lie that has no evidence to support it. There is no such thing as an evolutionist.The 'ist' part implies a religion, or for the need of blind belief like a religion, while the theory of evolution is based on observable evidence, quite the opposite of blind faith. Why do you act like you know something about evolution when you clearly know jack shit about it, and feel qualified to refute the vast majority of educated professional scientists? Think.
bojoben 2 years ago 6
Fucking dipshit!
bojoben 2 years ago
Genesis
Chapter 2
KJV
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. The whole dying part was a flat out lie on his part, because they did eat and didn't die.
BobtheNarc 2 years ago
Really! Where are they? They must be like 6000 years old now
Ayrhnd 2 years ago
You should check out 3DVCE by Lee Graham and other similar virtual creature evolution software.
"Critters" found here
watch?v=GuWJ1ZiwO2g
is also really cool, and a little simpler.
inthefade 3 years ago
Great, your program is wonderful!! i have used it to teach my mom how the evolution works! thank you for your work ^-^
gianblood 3 years ago
Amazing anyone is still gullible enough to fall for this creationism nonsense despite all the evidence for science.
We need better schools.
Ozzyman200 3 years ago 22
hey! I got inspired by the original video and this one and wrote a mac version :)
netkrash 3 years ago
My evolution program has a virus in it.
gamesbok 3 years ago
ProudToBLoud seems to have trouble with the concept of an analogy. Not surprising though since most fundies seem to have trouble with the concept of metaphor too.
mirt001 3 years ago
Proud to Bloud, you seem to be criticizing everyone for their possessive lack of a Nobel Prize. Is every Nobel prize recipient as retarded as you or is it that you are an inbred degenerate? Damn, your parents had to be twins to get a kid as stupid as you. And you seem to be a Luddite as well because of your fear of computers.
Looks like someone retained their single celled intelligence.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
heavyordance, people resort to ad hominem when the facts are against them, if it hurts your faith for somebody to make a comment against it, then your over emotional reaction just shows how little substance your position holds
I didnt mean to insult your faith.
ProudToBLoud 3 years ago
Sorry for the previous comment. I felt a little on edge after hearing fallacy after fallacy on Youtube creationist videos.
But I recommend you start seeing cdk007, Thunderf00t, AronRa. Especially AronRa.
HeavyOrdnance 3 years ago
thats ok but if you want a little light relief when you are feeling a bit edgy then you should check out some of richard dawkins videos, the comedy value from his weak arguments are great for breaking the tension.
ProudToBLoud 3 years ago
The one thing you're ignoring ProudToBLoud...is that these formulae are only possible with our observations of the natural world. We see it happening in the natural world and can thus make a formula that fits to what is already happening.
Your logic is faulty, and the program exhibited in this video is a great explanation for the basics of evolution theory. It's only too bad that some people refuse to understand it.
MizarShadow 3 years ago
if you have a formula for evolution then go get the nobel prize, the fact you created the program and are also running it on a computer that was also created by humans is a problem in the first instance.
ProudToBLoud 3 years ago
"if you have a formula for evolution then go get the nobel prize"
It's a little too late for that. I think you'll find someone else got there first.
m3141592 3 years ago 3
jesus ftw
westboy601 3 years ago
Ok, I'm going to side with the guy who thinks there was a time in history called 1400 AC. he sounds like he really thinks things through.
1enzeder 3 years ago
Probably a misspelling - AD?
ubuntututorials 3 years ago
Yeah, you are Right. I wanted to say AD (my home language is Spanish, AC is AD in Spanish. Sorry.) I won't say that I believe in evolution, I think it is the best explanation for the diversity of life on the Earth.
vladimirck 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How could a MINDLESS process create a mind?
Is there a machine on the planet that is capable of creating another machine that is greater than itself?
If you credit nature for doing something man cannot do even on a smaller scale (note previous question) who are you to say how it works?
What other professional field credits it's results to "RANDOMNESS AND CHANCE"?
You'd be a fool to even use those words in mathematics.
Any response not answering the question is dodging it.
J35u5dotcom 3 years ago
In the year 1400 AC: The earth is flat, and who think otherwise, is a stupid blasphemer! Find a single proof that earth is a sphere!
vladimirck 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
that doesn't answer any questions.
J35u5dotcom 3 years ago
This REALLY annoys me. Not only is evolution absolutely explained about twenty times over people still don't understand. IT'S NOT RANDOMNESS AND CHANCE - it's natural selection. There are random mutations but the bad ones are filtered out by NATURAL SELECTION. Good mutations are more common because the organism with a good mutation breeds more often and passes on the beneficial mutations.
Or god did it - your choice. But don't be ignorant of the facts and evidence. It really doesn't look good.
ubuntututorials 3 years ago 2
Correct. Selection is somewhat like a filter, a fitness filter tuned to the environment the organism lives in. The parameters for this filter are not random, only the mutations and the rest of the genome of an organism are. Only individuals that meet the filter parameters tend to get through, the others are left as 'noise' on the other side of the filter (ie - they are selected against)
DiggityDogg56 3 years ago
"Is there a machine on the planet that is capable of creating another machine that is greater than itself?"
Are you saying we're "greater" than the laws of logic and the fundamental rules that nature follows?
As it so happens, though, we can create life. Human life, even. It's not that hard. Automatic, you might say.
I'm not being funny, I'm trying to illustrate the problem with your way of thinking about creation as an act of design.
drdirs 3 years ago
" "RANDOMNESS AND CHANCE"?
You'd be a fool to even use those words in mathematics. "
Incorrect. Randomness and chance are perfectly valid mathematical concepts. You'd have to be a fool, or at least unfamiliar with maths, to claim otherwise.
Randomness is used in evolution to model the effects that cause variation, since these are largely unpredictable things like radiation or sexual pairing. Variation, however, is not evolution without selection.
drdirs 3 years ago
"Is there a machine on the planet that is capable of creating another machine that is greater than itself?"
While you will say I'm dodging the question, I'm simply pointing out that your question bares no relevance to the issue of natural selection and evolution. Also, all machines on this planet are man-made, so you're already there using a flawed set of parameters for your reasoning. You use complexity as evidence of intention, while there is no intention present in natural selection.
chrirus2006 3 years ago
I just found that there are such machines (or actually programs)... they start of by randomly putting code together, then they mate (by exchanging part of their code tree with another program), then random mutation occurs, then they're tested for fitness (natural selection). The ones that provide the closest answer are allowed to mate again and their children go the same process until one of these programs finally provides the best or better answer. Two new patentable ideas were discovered!
ozpowermo 3 years ago
"What other professional field credits it's results to "RANDOMNESS AND CHANCE"?"
You should read about Genetic Programming, where applications create themselves, no programmer writes them, and they have come up with 2 new patentable ideas... all using the principles of evolution. It really is something from nothing, all based on random chance :). An application randomly changes itself, breeds with other programs, and EVOLVES until it fits the selection criteria... truly amazing!
ozpowermo 3 years ago
Yes. Actually, each new generation of computers is designed by the previous generation of computers. There's a simple way to measure how much "greater" these new computers are than the computers that designed them--just measure the speed with which each one processes data.
This completely demolishes the philosophical idea that a designer can only design things that are simpler than the designer itself. It's unfounded and leads to false conclusions about life and the universe.
clt1113 3 years ago
Hum... Not really.
Each new generation of computers is designed by humans using the previous generation of computers as a tool. Computers still can't design, except in some simple cases, like in design using genetic programming. The results, though, are quite simpler than the computer itself.
rafaelhsouza 3 years ago
If you don't think something complex can come our of the inherent dynamics of a simple system you've never seen the equation for mandelbrot fractals.
You could write it on the back of your hand but all of the matter and energy in the universe would not be enough to represent the entire fractal set in perfect detail.
Of course someone had to design the equation, but if you attempt to apply the same reasoning to creationism you just end up asking what designed god. Dead end. Logical absurdity.
m3141592 3 years ago
well done!
narco73 3 years ago
very simple but interesting program.
urantivirus 3 years ago
Would you please post this as a response to "How Evolution REALLY DOESN'T Work" by eninburgh4 only do it in for red.
brenbullock 3 years ago 3
Yeah! That Predetor prey thing is just a small part of it too. Imagine programing all different aspects of this matter and then applying them all together. Allowing for variables to be changed based on environmental conditions. It could get very dynamic. And if it was down well enough and thorough enough one could plug in an ecosystem and get a rough Idea in how it will evolve. Crazy! :b
pmokadakeisuke 3 years ago
Thanks for the prog :)
CO2Junkie 3 years ago
Imagine if the preditors could evolve the same way the prey dose. They too would evolve to be more camoflauged in order to hunt better. Now if this is so, then the % rate of predetor kills would increase. This would decrease the population of the prey. Now once the prey population decreases there is less food for the predetors. The random dying variable can increase % with the demand for food. The prey too would be subjected to this. Thus, the predetor pop. drops allowing the prey to repop..
pmokadakeisuke 3 years ago
cool, check out "gene pool", swimbots evolve swimming mechanisms. it's lots of fun
anon9001a 3 years ago
So are you still working on a new version of your program?
alanthreonus 3 years ago
haha. yeah. I actually just found someone to help me design graphics. I've just been slammed in other areas of my life. Between 18 credits at college and working seven days a week, sometimes, I haven't had any time to fiddle with my personal projects. It'll come someday, though, I promise. Stay tuned.
JunoRulz 3 years ago
The thing with evolution programs is that if there is software that can evolve machines why do the people not think of evolving great inventions by making what they want the machine to do a benifit to survival? Maybe if you want a car the one that survives is able to move the farest in the least time and then is copyed a 1mil x and slightly changed each time and the software just does that until the user decides to stop or all the machines are at the best they will get for the evironmental need.
deathsminion25 3 years ago
... Which is exactly how genetic algorithms are applied in the industry.
The difficult parts of a GA are setting up a the method of generating the "individual" from the "DNA" in a way that allows mutations to flow naturally, and subsequently judging the fitness of each individual. The latter has to be a 100% automated process. So if you could simply let fitness = coolness, then you could evolve a cool looking car, but the computer has to be able to judge fitness with zero human input.
drdirs 3 years ago 2
The GA has to be applied to an aspect that has a clear measure of fitness, such as aerodynamics. Less air resistance = more fitness, that's a good starting point for GA development. Then of course you run into the problem of the sheer amount of processing involved in running fluid simulations (nontrivial in itself) on thousands of shapes over thousands of generations, but make no mistake, GAs are used in the automotive industry for solving all kinds of problems, often related to fuel efficiency.
drdirs 3 years ago
If computers were, say, trillions of times faster, then we could "easily" use GAs and physics simulations to evolve brand new cars with entirely new types of engines and so on, but they won't be for another.. uhm.. well 60 years. ;)
drdirs 3 years ago
how are u gona evolve a car??? it has no dna
gunz4top 3 years ago
It does if you create virtual cars that are constructed from a virtual genetic code. The point is that using a physics simulation in the fitness measure ensures that if a virtual car is "good", then a real-life copy of it would also be "good".
The real-life copy would not be built from "DNA" but in factories. To ensure that manufacturing is easy, the fitness measure could include an evaluation of the parts from a manufacturing perspective.
But anyway, not realistic quite yet.
drdirs 3 years ago
That is one neat program! Just the thing I have been looking for! Thanks!
But it would be great to have one more speedsetting. ("Fastest")
Otherwise, great software and I am looking forward to your next one!
Keep it up!
The11thgrape 3 years ago
Ok a cell from the outside to the inside has the following components: plasma cell membrane, endoplasmic reticulum, ribosome, lysosome, mitochondria, golgi and nucleus. They each have unique functions and still display an interdependence in the whole. For instance golgi process and amalgamate the macromolecules such as proteins and lipids. It is in everyway inconceivable to rationalize that design is not at the starting point of any discussion on origins. It's like saying lap-tops just evolve.
57hutchinson 3 years ago
Because something is complex, it can cast the illusion that it is designed, though that does not make it so. I'm not quite sure what your point is about the cell parts -- are you arguing for irreducible complexity?
Either way, it's not like saying laptops evolve. There are some key differences. Laptops do not mate. The parts of laptops do not have natural affinities for one another. Laptops are not subject to natural selection. Most importantly, laptops are not ALIVE.
JunoRulz 3 years ago
"Most importantly, laptops are not ALIVE."
And are therefore not applicable to Evolutionary theory... It's amazing how some people still compare inanimate, man-made objects to living, natural organisms (Kent Hovind, anyone?)
The sad part is, that no matter how often you tell people that comparing man-made structures to living organisms is a horrible analogy, they'll plug their ears and say "John 3:16" before reasserting the comparison all over again.
fs3d 3 years ago
Look guys I don't see how a belief in the Pesonal/Infinite is hard to accept. To accept the existence of a personal universe doesn't change natural laws like photosythesis, entropy, thermodynamics or gravity. To believe in a Designer doesn't alter how the systems of the body work. Anyway, I find that evolutionist are constantly using words like engineered, designed, built, devised and arranged in their presentations and manuscripts anyway. Alsom my apologies for sounding sarcastic on Saturday.
57hutchinson 3 years ago
Belief in a designer doesn't alter reality. It just presents you with a whole bunch of questions you have to look for really far-fetched answers to, while at the same time it denies you a workable scientific model you can use to actually understand life.
And nobody is arguing against belief in God. But believing in God also does not change the fact that life evolves over time and that this is the ONLY theory explaining how we got here that stands up to the evidence we have.
drdirs 3 years ago
The Biblical account simply doesn't match the evidence. And we're not talking about minor discrepancies but fundamental differences. To accept the Bible as literally true you'd have to reject almost all of science and approach the physical evidence that remains with only the intent of fitting it to predrawn conclusions using tortured logic.
drdirs 3 years ago
Why not simplify the concept of evolution so that hadjuk0010 and i could appreciate it better rather than focus more on the technical aspect of cdk007's vid? but i appreciate your efforts in showing the "errors" of the previous vid so i gave you 5 for that...but cdk007 has simply demonstrated why and how evolution works!
RenzSep30 4 years ago
I dont understand evolution.how can i accapt something that I dont understan unles I have faith
hajduk0010 4 years ago
As with anything you don't understand, you should try to learn as much as you can about it to further your comprehension. All you need is an open mind.
JunoRulz 4 years ago
this proves we all came from pac man
romney27 4 years ago
good job. poor video quality, but a good job with the program nonetheless. I'll give it a 5.
ZachValkyrie 4 years ago
nice vid 5/5
sunyboy333 4 years ago
150 years after Darwin and we still can't figured out WHY humans were naturally selected to have a larger brain mass. Funny eh?
rastabean 4 years ago
Yeah, it's pretty difficult to imagine how larger brains could be beneficial. I guess you'd have to have one to figure it out.
But really, ad hominems aside, I've linked a chart for you. It illustrates how brain size has increased from rodent-like mammals to the Australopithecus family groups (90MYA-1MYA) and then from the Australopithecus to Homo (1MYA-Present)
ww w. geocities . com/mechaclash/braininess . JPG
Fossils depict a steady growth in brain size over the past 100,000,000 years...
JunoRulz 4 years ago
...I'd post more charts with similar comparisons, but you probably wouldn't bother with them, anyway. In the Ancestor's Tale, there's a few chapters dedicated solely to the evolution of our brains. Now, this is a book that chronicles our evolution from single-celled organisms, so I'm sure if you read something more specific, you'll find way more than 50 pages on the subject. Either way, the facts are out there. Find them before you start making foolish statements.
JunoRulz 4 years ago
laws suck!
good thing evolution isn't, cuz it rockS!
json4224 4 years ago
Those who believe in evolution, even Darwin, when dying, they start to pray. Believe it or not!
amdelapaz 4 years ago
Evolution and theism are not mutually exclusive; see, for instance, Theodore Dobzhansky. If, in regards to Darwin, you are referring to his supposed deathbed conversion and renunciation of his theory (the Lady Hope story) it is a myth, and was demonstrated to be so more than a century ago. Even the creationist group Answers in Genesis admits it- check out their webpage titled "Arguments we think creationists should not use"
killerlimpet 4 years ago
all this shows is that things adapt to their environments, not actually changing. this is like saying asian people, black people, and white people are all different species.
J4gg1T 4 years ago
Since when is changing colors not "actually changing"? Is an Artic Wolf not a different species from the Gray Wolf? They're both wolves, but their different evironments cause natural selection to favor different colors of fur. Same with people. We're all people, but different conditions in different continents have favored different skin pigmentations.
JunoRulz 4 years ago
thats not evolution tho.
J4gg1T 4 years ago
The definition of evolution, as listed in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, reads as:
"Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."
Even something as minute as circular patterns changing on the wings of butterflies constitutes as evolution.
JunoRulz 4 years ago
but this doesnt proove that humans came from a master species that came from cingle celled organisms. jesus wins
J4gg1T 4 years ago
You're right, it doesn't. All it proves is that any species of organism will change and evolve when living in a competitive environment. Now, my NEXT program (and that's not the one I was talking about in this video's info section,) will show how species of today's world can evolve from single-celled organisms.
JunoRulz 4 years ago
i accept your apology.
J4gg1T 4 years ago
You should be banned from using computers. If you're too thick-headed to comprehend what my program illustrates, don't post comments until you've done yourself some studying. If you prefer to live in ignorance, it's fine with me, so long as you keep it to yourself.
JunoRulz 4 years ago
when all you can do is insult people you have proven you have nothing left to say. you cannot prove it, that is why it is a theory. i will keep my beliefs that humans did not come from single celled organisms, and you can keep your belief that they did.
J4gg1T 4 years ago
What evidence, exactly, do you base your belief on? It would have to be pretty strong to reject offhand the evidence that a century and a half of biology has provided. As for the insult you have perceived, forgive us- those of us who have taken the time to understand the world around us, indeed, who sometimes consider it to be god's primary work, often have little patience for those who run their mouths without taking the time to understand the relevent issues.
killerlimpet 4 years ago
i base my beliefs on faith.
J4gg1T 4 years ago
That's all well and good in its respective domain, but ToE is a part of science, where it is evidence and observation, not faith, which count. If you are criticizing the above video for not providing "proof," you are entering the domain of science, where an informed critique of evidence is what matters- do you have any of that?
killerlimpet 4 years ago
well, i believe that things do have the ability to adapt to their environments, not change completely. i use the example of skin tones. things do not change into completely different things. in the context of this program, if those numbers were to increase by one set (meaning if instead of 158, 104, 160 it would say 158, 104, 160, 112) that would be what people consider evolution. any person know that this will never occur in that simulation, so who's to say it will happen with living beings?
J4gg1T 4 years ago
I'm not sure that I understand your argument- are you saying that evolution is constrained by certain factors? Well yes, no one doubts that- see, for example, the scaling problem. But no one has ever demonstrated, to my knowledge, that the constraints are severe enough to prohibit the evolution of observed life forms.
killerlimpet 4 years ago
As for your example, keep in mind that the simulation is meant to model an aspect of biology, and for the sake of clarity it simplifies the issue- the genes are represented as a 3-tuple, not as a sugar-phosphate nucleic acid in a biochemical environment, and therefor they behave as such.
killerlimpet 4 years ago
In real life, much more complex, I see no reason why your example couldn't occur as, say, the duplication and successive mutation of one of the genes represented by a number- do you? In biology, what sort of thing would you see as analogous to increasing the size of an array in the simulation, and why?
killerlimpet 4 years ago
but it is just a small simulation.
in real life there are more variables to change. a single genome contains many chromosomes containing many genes.
no real genome has just three.
there are other simulations with more variables.
the organisms they make end up seeming completely different from each other.
one must only widen his range.
science wins.
grindstone1 2 years ago
so you are saying you base your beliefs on the LACK of evidence?
what other areas of your life do you do that in?
memoryofakiss 4 years ago
Don't go insulting my program, again. Believe it or not, I had the foresight to calculate the effect of faith in my code. Every iteration/ generation, exactly zero lines of code are factored into the results, which is the exact same impact your faith has on real organisms.
JunoRulz 4 years ago
FTW
acsempronio 4 years ago