Amazing that we can simulate evolution just by programming the basic principle and letting it crank through millions of simulated generations in no time at all. Watching evolution happen before your eyes thanks to computers. Great stuff.
While, as you say, this isn't direct proof of evolution, it fascinatingly highlights some important aspects: When a given problem has multiple solutions, speciation occurs, and when two species fight over a resource or directly against each other, co-evolution occurs. Awesome video. Must have been lots of effort.
The underlying science of evolution is wrong. People could not find transistional forms so they fabricated a piltdown man and fooled the world for more than 40 years. In recent years, a chinese attempted to glue fossilized bird head with a dino hind legs. why? It is because scientists are willing to pay millions of dollars for any missing link.
Nice video. I hope it silences the deluded religious kooks who attempt to slander the scientific method. My Atheist friends will enjoy "Religious fanatic debates Atheist" on my channel.
The title of this video is wrong. This doesn't explain how things evolve by natural selection... This is just showing how natural selection works. It's not explaining how evolution works at all, he's just saying, 'this evolved' or 'then this evolved another function' this is no explaination of evolution, only natural selection.
@gulbirk No, "Mutations create", for example, mutations create a pair of legs, if the legs have no benefit on the organisms survival, then Natural Selection will remove those pair of legs. So, no natural selection is not developing, it is only selecting & therefore removing. Natural selection is not very helpful at all, it will remove a pair of wings just because ONE fly cannot move those wings, eventhough those wings in further generations could be extremely beneficial to survival.
@ThomasWinkworth But thats what evolution is. Evolving is a term that we use, and its based on natural selection. Thats why its called "evolution BY natural selection"" is there any other way evolution can happen`?
@gulbirk Not quite, evolution doesn't occur by natural selection. Evolution is development, organisms don't develop by natural selection. Natural selection selects. Natural selection removes entire gene pools because it simply cannot plan ahead. Natural selection only has selective pressure, which lacks varied amounts. The gene pool is either lost or spared.
@ThomasWinkworth Yes, but the evolving isnt actually something that happens. The evolving is simply genes being passed on from one generation to the next, over a large period of time.
You just described the reproduction process. It seems to me like you think evolution is just the variation within different kinds of organisms, but evolution is far more than that.
Evolution is changing from one kind of organism into another. For example: a dinosaur to a bird.
The very reason evolution is called evolution is because the orginal definition for the word evolution was (and still is) "a development process"
@ThomasWinkworth Yes, and that happens throught natural selection, which is genes being passed on to the next generation over a large period of time. Thats what evolution is. Evolution isnt a force, its a label that we humans have put on this process.
@gulbirk Evolution doesn't happen through natural selection. It's natural SELECTION not natural development. Natural selection does not aide evolution in anyway whatsoever, it actually hinders the evolution (development) of an organism by removing mutations which are not beneficial to it's given environment. Natural selection - removes, Evolution supposedly creates.
@ThomasWinkworth No natural selection also creates. If a bird is born with longer wings, its more likely to survive, and its offspring will be more likely to have longer wings. Ergo= Natural selection creates longer wings.
@gulbirk Natural does NOT create. You are completely wrong. Natural selection ALLOWS the bird with the longer wings to reproduce, because natural selection has recognised that the longer wings will be benefical to the birds survival. If a bird was born with shorter wings, and it was detrimental to the birds survival, natural selection will kill the bird (removing the genes) by selective pressures (the environment).
@ThomasWinkworth But natural selection dont actually exist. Its a term that we use. <Weather or not it create or removes doesnt matter, it is responsible for the changes.
@ThomasWinkworth No, natural selection is a labour we put on this: Genes pass from one generation to the next, over the time that leads to changes. These changes happen because the enviroment where the animal lives changes.
@gulbirk The changes are not caused by natural selection. Your original argument was that the changes are caused by natural selection, but this is false, the changes are not caused by natural selection, natural selection does not create anything.
I agree that natural selection selects biologic traits which are best suited for the survival or reproduction of their bearers, but it DOESN'T create them, it selects them from what has already been created.
@ThomasWinkworth Again, natural selection is not something happening, its a term that we have invented to explain genes passing on over a waste period of time.
@gulbirk No natural selection is a term we have invented to explain why organisms are so adapted to their environment. Natural selection happens everytime procreation happens.
@SelfPromoting I think a bottom-up approach is helpful for understanding. If we can observe and reproduce the mechanisms of development in simple organism, then it's just a matter of scale and complexity to apply this to higher organisms. If you start by looking at mammals, it's so incredibly complex that you don't know where to start.
Even if I'd agree that there are a lot of unknowns and holes in evolution theory, it has more supporting evidence than any other developmental theory.
@SelfPromoting I thought you were talking about the green cube the creatures were "fighting" over. Regarding that, I think everything I said still stands. But regarding the red cube, you're right, the creatures have been given some additional capabilities from the start. It's necessary because they can't evolve a capability like photo sensors when they just have rigid blocks to start with. In nature on the other hand we have DNA and proteins.
@SelfPromoting You should read up on genetic algorithms. All you need is a fitness function and parameters for generating the next iteration (mutation rate etc.), which is modeled after genetics. The simulation in the video also models gravity and dynamics. Everything else "happens by chance."
Genetic algorithms can produce useful solutions to all kinds of problems without any knowledge about the problem domain. It's quite fascinating.
@SelfPromoting The video has the evidence! The creatures were not programmed to fight for the cube, no mind directed them. They don't "know" they're competing for the cube. They don't even know the cube exists, or that the other creature exists. And yet it looks like they're competing for it. If the cube was a piece of food you'd think they were hungry. If such a simple and crude simulation can give that impression, then it is clear that the real world can.
@SelfPromoting It might be difficult to reconstruct the exact process how sexes evolved, but the evolutionary advantage is clear. Instead of relying just on mutation, which is slow and rarely presents improvements, DNA recombination greatly increases the ability to produce beneficial adaptations. You can test it yourself, run a genetic algorithm with just mutation vs the same one with mating enabled, it will evolve much faster.
@SelfPromoting It's self-evident. If you have a fungus that creates one spore within one day, and one of those spores has a mutation that allows it to produce two spores a day, the DNA of that mutated fungus will, over time, become dominant in that population, until one mutates to produce four spores etc. To an outside human observer this might appear as if these fungi are motivated to produce more and more spores, but that is pure projection. It's just a mechanism, there's no mind behind it.
@SelfPromoting And the success to spread your genes depends on many parameters like longevity of life and the capability to find a mate. To maximize both of them, certain traits are of advantage, like speed, power, defense, the ability to find food etc. So all those little "sub-goals" develop, but ultimately they are all just a tool to optimize the main purpose, to reproduce.
@SelfPromoting The goal is not a result of the process, it's part of the setup, of the parameters. In real life, the individual who can spread his genes will have more influence on the following generations. This means that goal is set by the mechanism of reproduction. It's not changeable, it's intrinsic to life. In a computer simulation on the other hand, the selection is done artificially by arbitrary measurements and can be chosen by the designer.
@SelfPromoting That is the core of evolution: Survival of the fittest. The creature that is most successful in procreation ensures that its genes survive.
In a simulated environment that is very hard to compute, so the "fitness function" is something that can be calculated efficiently and ideally expressed in one value, like distance traveled, maximum speed, or distance to a green cube compared to an opponent (as seen in the video). The resulting creature will be optimized for that single goal.
Question for the board. Secretariat had a mutant heart, 22 lbs. vs. avg. 8 lb. heart for a thoroughbred horse. His heart allowed him to run faster than any horse in known history. Arguably his mutation was good. None of his offspring had extra large hearts. Why was the mutation for an extra large heart, not selected and passed to his offspring. That is how natural selection is supposed to work, right?
actually become a bit of Internet sport! It's like solving puzzles. I mean, basically EVERY Creationist argument is either fundamentally flawed, or fundamentally dishonest...you just have to spot the flaw! (And there're often several.)
The rest is just the Creationists squirming from having their religion (or hoax) ripped out from underneath them. ROFL!
@macgeek2004 actually become a bit of Internet sport! It's like solving puzzles. I mean, basically EVERY ATHEIST argument is either fundamentally flawed, or fundamentally dishonest...you just have to spot the flaw! (And there're often several.)
The rest is just the Atheist squirming from having their Logic (or hoax) ripped out from underneath them. ROFL!
Well...it's not so much people "arguing" over religion, it's more...sport. See, Creationists are always, and I mean ALWAYS, either one of two things: either so intellectually bankrupt that they cannot understand the underlying science, and so misrepresent it, or so intellectually dishonest that they misrepresent it ON PURPOSE to try and convince those of lesser intelligence to follow their Bronze-age religion.
So since the above is ALWAYS true, refuting/disproving Creationism has
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection.
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
@thedeathskittle Indeed, it seems like it is actively slowing down its opponent in order to be the closest to the cube at the end. I wonder if the cubes were ever given the capablity to realize the amount of time they had in a simulation so they would make more exacting forms?
Mutations are deleterious to the human genome, and have the opposite impact that evolution says they should have. Diabetes, leukemia, sickle cell anemia, lupus, congenital heat defects, Huntington's disease, Downs Syndrome, Phenylketonuria, cystic fibrosis, and Alzheimer's disease are the result of mutations. "DNA is constantly subject to mutations, accidental changes in its code. Mutations can lead to missing or malformed proteins, and that can lead to disease." - Understanding Genetics
The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.
I think it is funny to see how the religious people turn this from a learning experience into a b*tch fight. Just so they don't have to accept they were lied to all their life. We should be talking about how to use this, to further develop this and to what else this can be applied. The people that are open enough to read about both sides won't make claims like some of these people here. So basically they are religious internet trolls that sadly believe what they say. Just laugh at them.
I have a question about this simulation. - Suppose we have a computer of infinite power and simulation. I.e. a computer capable of accurately simulating actual evolution as it occurred on Earth. - And, like we have creatures competing for swimming skill. Can we have them compete on the thing that ultimately lead to us developing a concious? - I.e. can we have the computer evolve its own intelligence in the same way evolution did?
@pklukepk, good question. Since we don't really understand what causes consciousness, it's hard to tell. But if consciousness is just a matter of the complexity and information processing going on in the brain, then a fully simulated brain should have the same capability. This simulated world would also have people making simulations of how they evolved, and asking questions about whether they could evolve conscious beings on a sufficiently powerful computer.
@theinquisitor - well, if they develop a conscious, you could argue that we would be capable of communicating with them. - assuming they evolve a means of communication we can understand. - in this way, they would become more or less part of our world, rather than their own. - ?
@pklukepk, I think it would be rather cruel though. Deliberately creating a simulated universe full of conscious creatures that can feel pain and are subjected to the horror of natural selection for millions of generations. If they could discover our existence, they would undoubtedly view us as the epitome of evil. Or they could explain away our actions as divine right and worship us as gods, if our own history is anything to go by. Hopefully we're more moral than the gods people believe in.
@pklukepk Really great idea but we then run into the problem of determining the proper way of measuring consciousness. How can we determine which simulation is a closer approximation of an intelligent and self aware entity? What are the pressures which led to consciousness developing in out species.
In principle this process should work just as well for intelligence as simulated motion, but in practice the metric for judging success is more difficult to decide upon.
@murrth - I see. Isnt a simple determination of intelligence simply the capability to say or express "I am / I exist" ?
Being a layman, to me this simulation looks like it works in the same way evolution does, only using a different set of "stuff" to work on. Feed it enough stuff, in the right type of context, and intelligence could emerge. Bearing in mind it would take an almost absurdly powerfull computer to accurately simulate the amount of "stuff" there is in reality.
@pklukepk: "Isnt a simple determination of intelligence simply the capability to say or express "I am / I exist"?"
Not really. I can write a single line computer program that will do that. It's inherently difficult or impossible to tell the difference between the appearance of sentience and the genuine article. We can't even know for sure that other human beings have consciousness. If some of them had no internal experience but behaved exactly the same way, how could we know the difference?
@pklukepk Having enough computing power is not the biggest problem we have with intelligence and "evolving" it.
If we look at how the process works in example it should help illustrate the problem. In each case there are very clear criteria for success; moving, jumping, following, etc. The individual configurations are judged based upon how well they perform, and the better ones contribute more to the next generation.
Through slight random changes performance will improve gradually.
The whole process works because we can measure the differences between ind-configs. By keeping the random changes that improve performance and discarding the rest over generations we gradually develop superior configurations.
If we're talking about intelligence though, how do you compare one unconscious simulation to another? Which one is 'more' conscious and what are the criteria for judgment?
I hope this makes it more clear. The problem is the idea of consciousness. What does it entail?
"The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" is the COMPLETE TITLE of Darwin's book. Hmmm. "Favoured races?"
@leatherneck2044, language was used differently over a century ago. Races in this case is synonymous with breeds or subspecies and the book is mostly about plants and non-human animals. This might surprise you, but there is more to the book than the title, and you should read the whole thing before jumping to conclusions.
@theinquisitor I have read it and here is another quote from it: "... the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [AKA, negroes]...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider,...even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (Origin, p. 178).
@leatherneck2044, I suspect you're actually just reading selected quotes from some creationist source, since that quote is actually from the Descent of Man, not Origin. Isn't google great?
We could argue about whether Darwin was a racist. Most people in his time were, including creationists. Does that cast doubt on creationism too? What relevance does this have? Either evolution happens or it doesn't. Whether the first guy to think of it was a bastard is just a red herring. What's your point?
@theinquisitor the point is that evolution is the moral justification for all of the atrocities performed by the following: What is wrong with atheist Hitler killing Jews or atheist Stalin killing 20k of his own people or atheist Marx allowing two of his children to die of starvation because of birth defects or atheists Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris opening fire on Columbine HS? Or atheist Polpot? or the atheist Khmer Rouge?
@leatherneck2044, evolution cannot be the moral justification for anything. It's just an observation about the way nature works. That's like saying gravity is the moral justification for pushing someone down the stairs.
Also, Hitler wasn't an atheist. Dome very basic research. Also, Stalin did what he did because he was a fucking lunatic and a radical communist. I could point to Christians who act immorally too, but that has no bearing on whether Jesus was born of a virgin does it?
@theinquisitor Gravity is an observable scientific law, evolution is a religious philosophy that has never been nor can be observed but has been used as a moral justification by Darwinian devotees. So, what religion was Hitler? Christian? A person who bombs an abortion clinic is, de facto, only pretending to be a Christian. If a pedophile lures a child into his van with ice cream, is everyone who gives ice cream to a child a pedophile?
@leatherneck2044, if so then why is it that we don't hear evolutionary biologists calling for the extermination of the weak? Almost all scientists accept evolution, how many of them are neo-nazis? Very few if any.
Also:
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf. Clearly not an atheist. So incredibly easy to find if you gave a shit about facts. Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit you were mistaken?
@theinquisitor And, of course, it isn't possible that Hitler referred to God to appeal to a predominantly Christian culture. So, any politician or wannabe who makes a religious reference is Christian? I think it is so hilarious how you atheist/evolutionists are so selectively naive and obtuse.
@leatherneck2044 are you actually saying that whenever someone who claims a belief in god does something evil, it's a lie and they don't really believe in god, and you're calling me selectively naive?
What I find hilarious is how self-refuting you are. You argue that Hitler was just appealing to the predominantly Christian culture. Therefore it was a Christian culture that embraced Nazism, not an atheistic culture. Or were they all fake Christians too? Selectively naive indeed. Projection much?
@theinquisitor Yes, Hitler was posing as a sheep, but was really a wolf. And, yes, most Germans were fake Christians, just like today in the U.S.. IOW, you are very right about the GROSS hypocrisy in the church.
@leatherneck2044, you claim to know more than you possibly could. How do you know the inner convictions of millions of people? You claim that you know they are lying when they say they believe in the divinity of Jesus and other Christian doctrines. This is something that you could not possibly know. Just like you also claim to know that scientists think of evolution as a religion when they say they just see it as science. Are you telepathic or just incredibly arrogant?
@tpstrat14 This whole post was taken out of context. This simulation was used to demonstrate genetic programming, not to prove evolution. Anyways, there is more than enough evidence to prove that evolution is true. It's gonna be one of those long denials from christians like when it was shown that the earth was in fact round, christians denied it for as long as they could because it didn't work well with their belief. Given enough time, they'll have to accept evolution as fact.
@VARAK69 erm... that was the denial that the earth was not the centre of the solar system... nobody but the incredibly stupid ever thought the world was flat... all maritime tools for navigation going back as far as it possible historically used instruments that assumed the earth was a sphere. And its circumference and volume was calculated a long time before Christianity ever appeared.
The story that it was considered to be flat by the Christian church came from a novel by Washington Irving.
@tpstrat14 You didn't read the annotation nor the description did you?... as the poster said.. three times... in black and white. This is a computer program not offered as evidence or proof of evolution just like Star Wars is not proof of spacecraft!
The computer program btw is just a vehicle for the demonstration... just like the telephone system does not create words for the person you call to hear!
Seriously your profile says you are 22 years old... I find that very hard to believe.
@yanksfan2618 Jefferson had a go at that b rewriting the gospels and removing the magic bits and supernatural stuff... but its been buried for the most part.
It is however still available (for free )just google 'The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth'
There are structures inside cells that are so complex that they had to have been developed top down, not brick by brick up, they did not 'evolve' they were designed top down.
Microbiology shows that Darwinian Evolution is impossible.
AND THAT IS STATING IT MILDLY.The video link above is what they now teach in colleges, technology evolves fast and so what was true and popular yesterday is outdated info today.
"ID proposes that physical laws aren't sufficient to generate the complexity of life."
If that was the thesis of Intelligent Design, then the debate over ID is over and into the dust bin, so I would have to see some consensus statement that ID proposes a theory that denies or defies physical laws. ID is of no use if it makes statements that confound that which is easily observed, though it may by conjecture hypothesize that which cannot, which is what Evolution is quite good at.
@seismedia, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection"
That's from a pro-ID website. If the designer is a natural living thing, then the ID argument requires that the designer has a designer. It's an infinite regression. But we all know they're talking about a supernatural creator, which by definition doesn't obey natural laws.
@theinquisitor "living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" That's from a pro-ID website."
BUT, that's NOT what you said. You said "ID proposes that physical laws aren't sufficient to generate the complexity of life."
I'm just a bystander, no horse in this race, but you are pretending to disclose someone's position, but do so inaccurately. If ID really says what you say, I would really like to know. If not, don't make it up.
@theinquisitor "If the designer is a natural living thing, then the ID argument requires that the designer has a designer. It's an infinite regression. But we all know they're talking about a supernatural creator, which by definition doesn't obey natural laws."
Again, I don't know the ID position. Are they stating the designer was designed or created? Are they the ones claiming "supernatural powers", or is that your characterization? If not, are they saying something from which that's deduced?
@seismedia, either the designer was natural or supernatural. If it was natural, then their own premise demands that it itself be designed. If a natural designer arose by natural processes, then their premise is wrong, because their premise is that complex living things can't arise by natural processes. When confronted with this, they say the only alternative is a supernatural designer. ID is just a Trojan horse for creationism, as was shown in the Dover trial. Look up Kitzmiller vs Dover.
@theinquisitor "either the designer was natural or supernatural."
I don't know what the official ID position is, but it seems you've drawn a false choice because the concept of "supernatural" is simply nature outside of what we currently understand, not breaking the laws of nature. Imagine a ball point pen pulled from the pocket of one of the founders while all the others were dipping their quills; they would've tried him as a witch because of his "supernatural powers".
@seismedia, supernatural by definition is outside of nature. That's just what the word means. The fact that advanced technology may be mistakenly perceived to be supernatural doesn't mean it actually is. The point I've made three times now is that if the designer is natural, then the ID argument fails. It's very premise prohibits a natural designer. If it's a false choice, it's their false choice. They're the ones insisting that if it's not natural processes, then it's a designer.
@theinquisitor "supernatural by definition is outside of nature."
I thought "para" was Latin for outside, as in "paranormal". At any rate, it's a silly word with a self-contradictory definition. If nature is the real world governed by physical laws, how could something act outside of that?! Granted, we're still figuring out those laws, but we ought to assume that whatever we see, feel, touch, detect, can be explained by laws we either know, or will someday figure out.
@theinquisitor "The point I've made three times now is that if the designer is natural, then the ID argument fails."
Unless the designer was/is natural and is/was empowered with knowledge of physical laws beyond ours? You're also making assumptions with respect to finite limits on time, assuming a beginning and an end. I wouldn't waste my time trying to disprove Creationism ( or ID), it seems to be set up with water tight logical constructs that don't pretend to be subject to scientific proof.
@theinquisitor "their premise is that complex living things can't arise by natural processes"
Based on your earlier quotes, particularly the one from the ID web site, "certain features ... are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection", it would seem the emphasis is not on the word "natural", but on "undirected processes". And are they referring to speciation or simply expression of alleles when refuting "natural selection"?
@seismedia, it depends who you ask. Michael Behe talks about the principle he called irreducible complexity. The idea that some structures in living things cannot arise in a stepwise process because taking one element out of the structure makes it non-functional. If you're interested in this level of detail, I recommend reading Michael Behe's book, or watching a relevant documentary. Then read the rebuttals to ID by evolutionary biologists. Bear in mind over 99% of biologists reject ID.
@theinquisitor "Michael Behe talks about the principle he called irreducible complexity"
Saw a Behe video, didn't know he was ID. He strikes me as an intelligent guy, though honestly, he was vague on details.
IC doesn't come into play on advanced structures unless you get into Abiogenesis and Miller-Urey's primordial soup, but then you don't need the advance structures, you just need to go after a small single cell organism.
However, strictly speaking, Darwin's Evolution is Anagenic.
@theinquisitor "Bear in mind over 99% of biologists reject ID."
Why would that matter to me!? 67% of American voters through their lot in with Obama, FDR won in 1932 with 89% of the vote, and... Nixon had 97% of the vote in 1972. So much for the wisdom of the majority.
But this is science, so it matters even less if it was 99% or 1%. All that matters is whether or not something's true. That you would use consensus to support a scientific theory strikes me as rather odd.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
what a load of crap. Evolution is not a proven theory and does not show how added information is accomplished nor it's origin! Do some more digging and you will see it's not clear cut as many think.
@156769, google: evolution adding information and the first five links talk about how evolutionary processes add information. Including the two youtube videos that show up, which are made by biologists. I've done plenty of digging, but I have listened to the creationists AND the biologists. Have you listened to what the biologists have to say? Have you read a book about evolution that wasn't written by a creationist? Have you listened to both sides? I mean really listened.
@theinquisitor "Have you listened to both sides? I mean really listened."
Yes, and they're both ripe with confusion, intrigue, and outright dogma and perpetrated fallacies. It has become more interesting to watch the evolution of Evolutionary debate than to watch nature unfold or man's discoveries.
But lest discouragement take hold, there are plenty of honest scientists and theists who hold valiantly to the principle of embracing truth wherever they find it.
@156769 you can say the same about religion(s) or god...Who cares man...i would like to see your take on a video where it claims book of genesis is totally accurate, i doubt it will be a copy paste from here, and evolution is not clear cut because it is not a linear path, it is a path of survival and adaptation. over millions of years, a timeframe that the human mind has a hard time understanding, which is why you believe in a 2,000 year old earth
@156769 The phrase 'not a proven theory' is an oxymoron... just like 'not a round wheel' for it its not round... then its not a wheel...
The word theory itself denotes that it is 'the' explanation, In the case of evolution theory its also the only validated explanation...all other explanations are as yet invalid (not validated) .
So to recap there... The word for an 'unproven theory'... is 'hypothesis', which is a set of observations yet to be validated or explained.
anyone denying evoution has obiously never had the common cold more than once, and presumably they didnt survive as fighting the common cold requires our antibodies to evolve, im a lamen, by n means an expert but cmon folks, 21st century here, evolution is the best explanation by a long way and the religosaurs arent coing up with anything even close never mind better
@radvermin, you can make that argument, but it does leave the question of where that intelligence comes from. A physics-creating intelligence is more complex than the physics it creates, and so it can only be the proximate cause at best, not the ultimate cause. Another potential explanation is a multitude of universes each with different physical laws, and we just happen to be in one condusive to life. This is an unanswered question, but a god doesn't work as an ultimate explanation for reality.
@theinquisitor I see the reverse. That less cannot create more. Guess we'll just differ on this point though :D
What is interesting (and I'm still working through atheism or theism) is that even though we know how lightning is created, Christians still hold that lightning can be caused by God. Even with the science God is still seen as the ultimate answer. What does that make God in light of natural evidence? I don't know... but apparently nature cannot explain away God apparently.
I am laughing so hard right now. God damn it.
pythor2 2 weeks ago
Thumbs up if Vsauce brought you here!
balsphinktahr 3 weeks ago
i want this program,
NobodyLikesPaul 1 month ago
Not sure if legitimate science, or slowly transitioning from science to really funny...
megakid39 1 month ago
@megakid39 computer science, really funny ;)
andreirocks1992 1 month ago
GOD CrEATeD CuBIc CrEATUrES!!!!! DErP heRP tHe BiBLE SaYS sO!
TigeroL42 3 months ago
How do I make those?
ChrisEMahler 3 months ago
Minecraft.
mclmatty 3 months ago
@mclmatty
Because everything involving blocks is minecraft.
TheSharpTHOfLulz 3 months ago
@TheSharpTHOfLulz It was a joke.
mclmatty 3 months ago
1:28 = Geodude
ThatAdelaideGuy 3 months ago
neat
brotherdarek 4 months ago
Man, even the big boy scientists are hittin' up the Bamzooki.
xXRazorfistXx 4 months ago
Lol at the cubes makes me giggle hahahah.
MuslimRationalizer 4 months ago
0:26 sperms
TheSamiIbrahim 4 months ago
Amazing that we can simulate evolution just by programming the basic principle and letting it crank through millions of simulated generations in no time at all. Watching evolution happen before your eyes thanks to computers. Great stuff.
warppipedream 4 months ago
No proof for evolution at all,, but anyway, very nice work, Congrats!
felipebena1 4 months ago
Comment removed
RobSellsTacos 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
RobSellsTacos 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
RobSellsTacos 3 weeks ago
Wow just reading the below comments (from a month ago) makes me lose hope in humanity..
nokomokoify 4 months ago
Fascinating animation.
micometer 5 months ago
looks like the special Olympics to me
ColdByrdz 5 months ago
While, as you say, this isn't direct proof of evolution, it fascinatingly highlights some important aspects: When a given problem has multiple solutions, speciation occurs, and when two species fight over a resource or directly against each other, co-evolution occurs. Awesome video. Must have been lots of effort.
lagerbaer 6 months ago 3
I wish it was louder, but just watching I understand... Kind of. xD Cool.
cutekillerofwow 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The underlying science of evolution is wrong. People could not find transistional forms so they fabricated a piltdown man and fooled the world for more than 40 years. In recent years, a chinese attempted to glue fossilized bird head with a dino hind legs. why? It is because scientists are willing to pay millions of dollars for any missing link.
daogdaog 6 months ago
Can I download this? It looks fun, spore was such a fucking let down, but this looks good... well more ture to the idea at least.
UnalliedReviewers 6 months ago 16
The Evolution of Mind Craft XD
BiggySeth 6 months ago
How many times do scientists have to repeat their experiments to verify that inorganic matter cannot be made organic?
daogdaog 7 months ago
@daogdaog Until creationists realise that you can turn chemicals into organic matter. This is done all the time in industry.
spacecadet35 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@daogdaog
"inorganic matter cannot be made organic"
Organic matter simply consists of compounds whose molecules contain carbon. That's it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice video. I hope it silences the deluded religious kooks who attempt to slander the scientific method. My Atheist friends will enjoy "Religious fanatic debates Atheist" on my channel.
Sweence 7 months ago
Haha . . . the annotation says sidebar . . . that makes me nostalgic for the old days of youtube.
Weird how "the old days" were about a year ago . . .
HonestDiscussioner 7 months ago
Fascinating! Thanks very much!
benbisley 7 months ago
If you like this video you may also like boxcar2d(dot)com
See cars evolve!
kereng5 7 months ago
lol, minecraft
68stanly 7 months ago
They're all both fascinating and adorable ♥
Lanceweilder 8 months ago
The title of this video is wrong. This doesn't explain how things evolve by natural selection... This is just showing how natural selection works. It's not explaining how evolution works at all, he's just saying, 'this evolved' or 'then this evolved another function' this is no explaination of evolution, only natural selection.
ThomasWinkworth 8 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth isnt that what evolution is? Natural selection and mutations are basicly what evolution says.
gulbirk 7 months ago
@gulbirk No, "Mutations create", for example, mutations create a pair of legs, if the legs have no benefit on the organisms survival, then Natural Selection will remove those pair of legs. So, no natural selection is not developing, it is only selecting & therefore removing. Natural selection is not very helpful at all, it will remove a pair of wings just because ONE fly cannot move those wings, eventhough those wings in further generations could be extremely beneficial to survival.
ThomasWinkworth 7 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth But thats what evolution is. Evolving is a term that we use, and its based on natural selection. Thats why its called "evolution BY natural selection"" is there any other way evolution can happen`?
gulbirk 7 months ago
@gulbirk Not quite, evolution doesn't occur by natural selection. Evolution is development, organisms don't develop by natural selection. Natural selection selects. Natural selection removes entire gene pools because it simply cannot plan ahead. Natural selection only has selective pressure, which lacks varied amounts. The gene pool is either lost or spared.
ThomasWinkworth 7 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth Yes, but the evolving isnt actually something that happens. The evolving is simply genes being passed on from one generation to the next, over a large period of time.
gulbirk 7 months ago
@gulbirk No not at all.
You just described the reproduction process. It seems to me like you think evolution is just the variation within different kinds of organisms, but evolution is far more than that.
Evolution is changing from one kind of organism into another. For example: a dinosaur to a bird.
The very reason evolution is called evolution is because the orginal definition for the word evolution was (and still is) "a development process"
ThomasWinkworth 7 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth Yes thats just what I said, genes passing from one generation to the next OVER A LARGE PERIOD OF TIME. thats evolution.
gulbirk 7 months ago
@gulbirk That's not what i said at all, evolution is NOT genes passing on, that's called reproduction.
Evolution is a kind of organism developing into another kind of organism.
ThomasWinkworth 7 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth Yes, and that happens throught natural selection, which is genes being passed on to the next generation over a large period of time. Thats what evolution is. Evolution isnt a force, its a label that we humans have put on this process.
gulbirk 7 months ago
@gulbirk Evolution doesn't happen through natural selection. It's natural SELECTION not natural development. Natural selection does not aide evolution in anyway whatsoever, it actually hinders the evolution (development) of an organism by removing mutations which are not beneficial to it's given environment. Natural selection - removes, Evolution supposedly creates.
ThomasWinkworth 7 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth No natural selection also creates. If a bird is born with longer wings, its more likely to survive, and its offspring will be more likely to have longer wings. Ergo= Natural selection creates longer wings.
gulbirk 7 months ago
@gulbirk Natural does NOT create. You are completely wrong. Natural selection ALLOWS the bird with the longer wings to reproduce, because natural selection has recognised that the longer wings will be benefical to the birds survival. If a bird was born with shorter wings, and it was detrimental to the birds survival, natural selection will kill the bird (removing the genes) by selective pressures (the environment).
ThomasWinkworth 7 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth But natural selection dont actually exist. Its a term that we use. <Weather or not it create or removes doesnt matter, it is responsible for the changes.
gulbirk 7 months ago
@gulbirk If something doesn't exist then how can it be responsible for something causing something in reality? Natural selection does exist.
ThomasWinkworth 7 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth No, natural selection is a labour we put on this: Genes pass from one generation to the next, over the time that leads to changes. These changes happen because the enviroment where the animal lives changes.
Thats what we choose to call natural selection.
gulbirk 7 months ago
@gulbirk The changes are not caused by natural selection. Your original argument was that the changes are caused by natural selection, but this is false, the changes are not caused by natural selection, natural selection does not create anything.
I agree that natural selection selects biologic traits which are best suited for the survival or reproduction of their bearers, but it DOESN'T create them, it selects them from what has already been created.
Hence the "Natural selection process".
ThomasWinkworth 7 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth Again, natural selection is not something happening, its a term that we have invented to explain genes passing on over a waste period of time.
gulbirk 7 months ago
@gulbirk No natural selection is a term we have invented to explain why organisms are so adapted to their environment. Natural selection happens everytime procreation happens.
ThomasWinkworth 7 months ago
It was like a retarded robot olympics
ZequeZ1 8 months ago
@SelfPromoting I think a bottom-up approach is helpful for understanding. If we can observe and reproduce the mechanisms of development in simple organism, then it's just a matter of scale and complexity to apply this to higher organisms. If you start by looking at mammals, it's so incredibly complex that you don't know where to start.
Even if I'd agree that there are a lot of unknowns and holes in evolution theory, it has more supporting evidence than any other developmental theory.
floppel 8 months ago
@SelfPromoting I thought you were talking about the green cube the creatures were "fighting" over. Regarding that, I think everything I said still stands. But regarding the red cube, you're right, the creatures have been given some additional capabilities from the start. It's necessary because they can't evolve a capability like photo sensors when they just have rigid blocks to start with. In nature on the other hand we have DNA and proteins.
floppel 8 months ago
@SelfPromoting You should read up on genetic algorithms. All you need is a fitness function and parameters for generating the next iteration (mutation rate etc.), which is modeled after genetics. The simulation in the video also models gravity and dynamics. Everything else "happens by chance."
Genetic algorithms can produce useful solutions to all kinds of problems without any knowledge about the problem domain. It's quite fascinating.
floppel 8 months ago
@SelfPromoting The video has the evidence! The creatures were not programmed to fight for the cube, no mind directed them. They don't "know" they're competing for the cube. They don't even know the cube exists, or that the other creature exists. And yet it looks like they're competing for it. If the cube was a piece of food you'd think they were hungry. If such a simple and crude simulation can give that impression, then it is clear that the real world can.
floppel 8 months ago
@SelfPromoting It might be difficult to reconstruct the exact process how sexes evolved, but the evolutionary advantage is clear. Instead of relying just on mutation, which is slow and rarely presents improvements, DNA recombination greatly increases the ability to produce beneficial adaptations. You can test it yourself, run a genetic algorithm with just mutation vs the same one with mating enabled, it will evolve much faster.
floppel 8 months ago
@SelfPromoting It's self-evident. If you have a fungus that creates one spore within one day, and one of those spores has a mutation that allows it to produce two spores a day, the DNA of that mutated fungus will, over time, become dominant in that population, until one mutates to produce four spores etc. To an outside human observer this might appear as if these fungi are motivated to produce more and more spores, but that is pure projection. It's just a mechanism, there's no mind behind it.
floppel 8 months ago
@SelfPromoting And the success to spread your genes depends on many parameters like longevity of life and the capability to find a mate. To maximize both of them, certain traits are of advantage, like speed, power, defense, the ability to find food etc. So all those little "sub-goals" develop, but ultimately they are all just a tool to optimize the main purpose, to reproduce.
floppel 8 months ago
@SelfPromoting The goal is not a result of the process, it's part of the setup, of the parameters. In real life, the individual who can spread his genes will have more influence on the following generations. This means that goal is set by the mechanism of reproduction. It's not changeable, it's intrinsic to life. In a computer simulation on the other hand, the selection is done artificially by arbitrary measurements and can be chosen by the designer.
floppel 8 months ago
@SelfPromoting That is the core of evolution: Survival of the fittest. The creature that is most successful in procreation ensures that its genes survive.
In a simulated environment that is very hard to compute, so the "fitness function" is something that can be calculated efficiently and ideally expressed in one value, like distance traveled, maximum speed, or distance to a green cube compared to an opponent (as seen in the video). The resulting creature will be optimized for that single goal.
floppel 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Question for the board. Secretariat had a mutant heart, 22 lbs. vs. avg. 8 lb. heart for a thoroughbred horse. His heart allowed him to run faster than any horse in known history. Arguably his mutation was good. None of his offspring had extra large hearts. Why was the mutation for an extra large heart, not selected and passed to his offspring. That is how natural selection is supposed to work, right?
achilles197474 8 months ago 2
@fairyheli2
actually become a bit of Internet sport! It's like solving puzzles. I mean, basically EVERY Creationist argument is either fundamentally flawed, or fundamentally dishonest...you just have to spot the flaw! (And there're often several.)
The rest is just the Creationists squirming from having their religion (or hoax) ripped out from underneath them. ROFL!
macgeek2004 9 months ago
@macgeek2004 hahaha so true ;)
DaMastaOfRoad 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@macgeek2004 actually become a bit of Internet sport! It's like solving puzzles. I mean, basically EVERY ATHEIST argument is either fundamentally flawed, or fundamentally dishonest...you just have to spot the flaw! (And there're often several.)
The rest is just the Atheist squirming from having their Logic (or hoax) ripped out from underneath them. ROFL!
crashtextr 3 months ago
@fairyheli2
Well...it's not so much people "arguing" over religion, it's more...sport. See, Creationists are always, and I mean ALWAYS, either one of two things: either so intellectually bankrupt that they cannot understand the underlying science, and so misrepresent it, or so intellectually dishonest that they misrepresent it ON PURPOSE to try and convince those of lesser intelligence to follow their Bronze-age religion.
So since the above is ALWAYS true, refuting/disproving Creationism has
macgeek2004 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection.
achilles197474 9 months ago
Now try explaining to them that their lives exist only as a pattern of bits and bytes on a chip.
derman077 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Random mutations consistently destroy information." P. 15; "Selection cannot rescue the genome." P. 69; "Mutation / selection cannot even create a single gene." P. 123; "All evidence points to human genetic degradation." P.143 - Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Cornell U. Genetics Professor John Sanford. He holds 25 genetic patents and is the inventor of the gene gun. He is truly an expert on the subject of mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
achilles197474 9 months ago
Too bad cubes don't appear in nature. :(
werandomnize 9 months ago
@werandomnize two words: iron pyrite.
theinquisitor 9 months ago 27
@werandomnize I thought everything in nature were cubes, such as dirt, gold, and diamonds.
If you get enough of these cubes, you can often make cool stuff out of them like pick axes, shovels, and swords on your 3x3 crafting table.
1objection 6 months ago
this simulation > spore.
jbz3 10 months ago
LOL the crab like creature just likes to beat his opponent up
thedeathskittle 10 months ago 13
@thedeathskittle Indeed, it seems like it is actively slowing down its opponent in order to be the closest to the cube at the end. I wonder if the cubes were ever given the capablity to realize the amount of time they had in a simulation so they would make more exacting forms?
Elzon1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mutations are deleterious to the human genome, and have the opposite impact that evolution says they should have. Diabetes, leukemia, sickle cell anemia, lupus, congenital heat defects, Huntington's disease, Downs Syndrome, Phenylketonuria, cystic fibrosis, and Alzheimer's disease are the result of mutations. "DNA is constantly subject to mutations, accidental changes in its code. Mutations can lead to missing or malformed proteins, and that can lead to disease." - Understanding Genetics
achilles197474 10 months ago
Incredible
greasyelvis 11 months ago
this is awesome, I want to know more about the origins of this simulation
boogiebuddy01 11 months ago
@boogiebuddy01, check the description bar for a link to a video interview with the creator of the simulation where he talks about exactly that.
theinquisitor 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.
SwordofSpirit1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Time to stop crying try Naughty women benaughtyman.info
sasanthinirmani1 1 year ago
I think it is funny to see how the religious people turn this from a learning experience into a b*tch fight. Just so they don't have to accept they were lied to all their life. We should be talking about how to use this, to further develop this and to what else this can be applied. The people that are open enough to read about both sides won't make claims like some of these people here. So basically they are religious internet trolls that sadly believe what they say. Just laugh at them.
UnlistedAccount 1 year ago 15
What program was used to do this? Any links to source code etc.?
nick7212 1 year ago
I have a question about this simulation. - Suppose we have a computer of infinite power and simulation. I.e. a computer capable of accurately simulating actual evolution as it occurred on Earth. - And, like we have creatures competing for swimming skill. Can we have them compete on the thing that ultimately lead to us developing a concious? - I.e. can we have the computer evolve its own intelligence in the same way evolution did?
pklukepk 1 year ago
@pklukepk, good question. Since we don't really understand what causes consciousness, it's hard to tell. But if consciousness is just a matter of the complexity and information processing going on in the brain, then a fully simulated brain should have the same capability. This simulated world would also have people making simulations of how they evolved, and asking questions about whether they could evolve conscious beings on a sufficiently powerful computer.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor - well, if they develop a conscious, you could argue that we would be capable of communicating with them. - assuming they evolve a means of communication we can understand. - in this way, they would become more or less part of our world, rather than their own. - ?
pklukepk 1 year ago
@pklukepk, I think it would be rather cruel though. Deliberately creating a simulated universe full of conscious creatures that can feel pain and are subjected to the horror of natural selection for millions of generations. If they could discover our existence, they would undoubtedly view us as the epitome of evil. Or they could explain away our actions as divine right and worship us as gods, if our own history is anything to go by. Hopefully we're more moral than the gods people believe in.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@pklukepk Really great idea but we then run into the problem of determining the proper way of measuring consciousness. How can we determine which simulation is a closer approximation of an intelligent and self aware entity? What are the pressures which led to consciousness developing in out species.
In principle this process should work just as well for intelligence as simulated motion, but in practice the metric for judging success is more difficult to decide upon.
murrth 11 months ago
@murrth - I see. Isnt a simple determination of intelligence simply the capability to say or express "I am / I exist" ?
Being a layman, to me this simulation looks like it works in the same way evolution does, only using a different set of "stuff" to work on. Feed it enough stuff, in the right type of context, and intelligence could emerge. Bearing in mind it would take an almost absurdly powerfull computer to accurately simulate the amount of "stuff" there is in reality.
pklukepk 11 months ago
@pklukepk: "Isnt a simple determination of intelligence simply the capability to say or express "I am / I exist"?"
Not really. I can write a single line computer program that will do that. It's inherently difficult or impossible to tell the difference between the appearance of sentience and the genuine article. We can't even know for sure that other human beings have consciousness. If some of them had no internal experience but behaved exactly the same way, how could we know the difference?
theinquisitor 11 months ago
@pklukepk Having enough computing power is not the biggest problem we have with intelligence and "evolving" it.
If we look at how the process works in example it should help illustrate the problem. In each case there are very clear criteria for success; moving, jumping, following, etc. The individual configurations are judged based upon how well they perform, and the better ones contribute more to the next generation.
Through slight random changes performance will improve gradually.
murrth 11 months ago
The whole process works because we can measure the differences between ind-configs. By keeping the random changes that improve performance and discarding the rest over generations we gradually develop superior configurations.
If we're talking about intelligence though, how do you compare one unconscious simulation to another? Which one is 'more' conscious and what are the criteria for judgment?
I hope this makes it more clear. The problem is the idea of consciousness. What does it entail?
murrth 11 months ago
why are there people on youtube arguing about religion?
fairyheli2 1 year ago
"The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" is the COMPLETE TITLE of Darwin's book. Hmmm. "Favoured races?"
leatherneck2044 1 year ago
@leatherneck2044, language was used differently over a century ago. Races in this case is synonymous with breeds or subspecies and the book is mostly about plants and non-human animals. This might surprise you, but there is more to the book than the title, and you should read the whole thing before jumping to conclusions.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor I have read it and here is another quote from it: "... the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [AKA, negroes]...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider,...even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (Origin, p. 178).
leatherneck2044 1 year ago
@leatherneck2044, I suspect you're actually just reading selected quotes from some creationist source, since that quote is actually from the Descent of Man, not Origin. Isn't google great?
We could argue about whether Darwin was a racist. Most people in his time were, including creationists. Does that cast doubt on creationism too? What relevance does this have? Either evolution happens or it doesn't. Whether the first guy to think of it was a bastard is just a red herring. What's your point?
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor the point is that evolution is the moral justification for all of the atrocities performed by the following: What is wrong with atheist Hitler killing Jews or atheist Stalin killing 20k of his own people or atheist Marx allowing two of his children to die of starvation because of birth defects or atheists Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris opening fire on Columbine HS? Or atheist Polpot? or the atheist Khmer Rouge?
leatherneck2044 1 year ago
@leatherneck2044, evolution cannot be the moral justification for anything. It's just an observation about the way nature works. That's like saying gravity is the moral justification for pushing someone down the stairs.
Also, Hitler wasn't an atheist. Dome very basic research. Also, Stalin did what he did because he was a fucking lunatic and a radical communist. I could point to Christians who act immorally too, but that has no bearing on whether Jesus was born of a virgin does it?
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor Gravity is an observable scientific law, evolution is a religious philosophy that has never been nor can be observed but has been used as a moral justification by Darwinian devotees. So, what religion was Hitler? Christian? A person who bombs an abortion clinic is, de facto, only pretending to be a Christian. If a pedophile lures a child into his van with ice cream, is everyone who gives ice cream to a child a pedophile?
leatherneck2044 1 year ago
@leatherneck2044, if so then why is it that we don't hear evolutionary biologists calling for the extermination of the weak? Almost all scientists accept evolution, how many of them are neo-nazis? Very few if any.
Also:
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf. Clearly not an atheist. So incredibly easy to find if you gave a shit about facts. Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit you were mistaken?
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor And, of course, it isn't possible that Hitler referred to God to appeal to a predominantly Christian culture. So, any politician or wannabe who makes a religious reference is Christian? I think it is so hilarious how you atheist/evolutionists are so selectively naive and obtuse.
leatherneck2044 1 year ago
@leatherneck2044 are you actually saying that whenever someone who claims a belief in god does something evil, it's a lie and they don't really believe in god, and you're calling me selectively naive?
What I find hilarious is how self-refuting you are. You argue that Hitler was just appealing to the predominantly Christian culture. Therefore it was a Christian culture that embraced Nazism, not an atheistic culture. Or were they all fake Christians too? Selectively naive indeed. Projection much?
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor Yes, Hitler was posing as a sheep, but was really a wolf. And, yes, most Germans were fake Christians, just like today in the U.S.. IOW, you are very right about the GROSS hypocrisy in the church.
leatherneck2044 1 year ago
@leatherneck2044, you claim to know more than you possibly could. How do you know the inner convictions of millions of people? You claim that you know they are lying when they say they believe in the divinity of Jesus and other Christian doctrines. This is something that you could not possibly know. Just like you also claim to know that scientists think of evolution as a religion when they say they just see it as science. Are you telepathic or just incredibly arrogant?
theinquisitor 1 year ago
haha this is halarious!
broadcastmyass4u 1 year ago
awesome! 5 stars
johnmichalak85 1 year ago
this is fascinating.
rustyscrapper 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please, use evolution to design them! To add or delete boxers!
andenandenia 1 year ago
Please, use evolution design them! To add or delete boxers!
andenandenia 1 year ago
3:16 The best.
TechnoL33T 1 year ago
hilrious... you can't prove evolution through actual, real life,, so make up a computer program to prove it
tpstrat14 1 year ago
@tpstrat14 This whole post was taken out of context. This simulation was used to demonstrate genetic programming, not to prove evolution. Anyways, there is more than enough evidence to prove that evolution is true. It's gonna be one of those long denials from christians like when it was shown that the earth was in fact round, christians denied it for as long as they could because it didn't work well with their belief. Given enough time, they'll have to accept evolution as fact.
VARAK69 1 year ago
@VARAK69
The "Earth being flat" is a myth, it was never believed by anyone literate. Please educate yourself if you want to lecture others.
omegapoint777 1 year ago
@omegapoint777 Oops! I used the wrong analogy. I meant "the Earth wasn't the center of the universe"
Thanks for pointing that out.
VARAK69 1 year ago
@VARAK69 erm... that was the denial that the earth was not the centre of the solar system... nobody but the incredibly stupid ever thought the world was flat... all maritime tools for navigation going back as far as it possible historically used instruments that assumed the earth was a sphere. And its circumference and volume was calculated a long time before Christianity ever appeared.
The story that it was considered to be flat by the Christian church came from a novel by Washington Irving.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@tpstrat14 It has ben proven through real life, suck on that.
Sweddude 1 year ago 14
@tpstrat14 I don't think it's supposed to prove evolution, it's just a cool program that brings us a step closer to being able to simulate life.
Plus it's funny. Those things at the end grabbing the box were pretty funny!
Flowtail 1 year ago
@tpstrat14 You didn't read the annotation nor the description did you?... as the poster said.. three times... in black and white. This is a computer program not offered as evidence or proof of evolution just like Star Wars is not proof of spacecraft!
The computer program btw is just a vehicle for the demonstration... just like the telephone system does not create words for the person you call to hear!
Seriously your profile says you are 22 years old... I find that very hard to believe.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
32 people couldn't find this in their bibles...
rsolano60 1 year ago 2
@rsolano60
someone should rewrite Christianity to be more open to scientific development...
yanksfan2618 1 year ago
@yanksfan2618 Jefferson had a go at that b rewriting the gospels and removing the magic bits and supernatural stuff... but its been buried for the most part.
It is however still available (for free )just google 'The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth'
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
Can I download this program? Please?
LetsPlayAutism 1 year ago
@LetsPlayAutism yes, from stellaralchemy(DOT)com
rsolano60 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE&feature=related
Irreducible complexity
There are structures inside cells that are so complex that they had to have been developed top down, not brick by brick up, they did not 'evolve' they were designed top down.
Microbiology shows that Darwinian Evolution is impossible.
AND THAT IS STATING IT MILDLY.The video link above is what they now teach in colleges, technology evolves fast and so what was true and popular yesterday is outdated info today.
c1zx 1 year ago
Man, this stuff is so cool. Could I buy this somewhere?
ShrapnelSong 1 year ago
this would make a sweet video game/mmorpg(?) that relies heavily on physics to survive/evolve.
PrizeFighter 1 year ago 2
@PrizeFighter There is one actually. Look up the Nintendo gamecube game Cubivore.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
what happened for millions of years while the different startergies were "developed"????? they all died???
pixelspillover 1 year ago
"A simulation of physical laws generating complexity proves that those physical laws cannot generate complexity."
Obviously a false statement, but also a false choice.
"A simulation of physical laws generating complexity DOES NOT prove that those physical laws can generate complexity" adding "by random occurrence"
would not be an absurd statement.
seismedia 1 year ago
"ID proposes that physical laws aren't sufficient to generate the complexity of life."
If that was the thesis of Intelligent Design, then the debate over ID is over and into the dust bin, so I would have to see some consensus statement that ID proposes a theory that denies or defies physical laws. ID is of no use if it makes statements that confound that which is easily observed, though it may by conjecture hypothesize that which cannot, which is what Evolution is quite good at.
seismedia 1 year ago
@seismedia, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection"
That's from a pro-ID website. If the designer is a natural living thing, then the ID argument requires that the designer has a designer. It's an infinite regression. But we all know they're talking about a supernatural creator, which by definition doesn't obey natural laws.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor "living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" That's from a pro-ID website."
BUT, that's NOT what you said. You said "ID proposes that physical laws aren't sufficient to generate the complexity of life."
I'm just a bystander, no horse in this race, but you are pretending to disclose someone's position, but do so inaccurately. If ID really says what you say, I would really like to know. If not, don't make it up.
seismedia 1 year ago
@theinquisitor "If the designer is a natural living thing, then the ID argument requires that the designer has a designer. It's an infinite regression. But we all know they're talking about a supernatural creator, which by definition doesn't obey natural laws."
Again, I don't know the ID position. Are they stating the designer was designed or created? Are they the ones claiming "supernatural powers", or is that your characterization? If not, are they saying something from which that's deduced?
seismedia 1 year ago
@seismedia, either the designer was natural or supernatural. If it was natural, then their own premise demands that it itself be designed. If a natural designer arose by natural processes, then their premise is wrong, because their premise is that complex living things can't arise by natural processes. When confronted with this, they say the only alternative is a supernatural designer. ID is just a Trojan horse for creationism, as was shown in the Dover trial. Look up Kitzmiller vs Dover.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor "either the designer was natural or supernatural."
I don't know what the official ID position is, but it seems you've drawn a false choice because the concept of "supernatural" is simply nature outside of what we currently understand, not breaking the laws of nature. Imagine a ball point pen pulled from the pocket of one of the founders while all the others were dipping their quills; they would've tried him as a witch because of his "supernatural powers".
seismedia 1 year ago
@seismedia, supernatural by definition is outside of nature. That's just what the word means. The fact that advanced technology may be mistakenly perceived to be supernatural doesn't mean it actually is. The point I've made three times now is that if the designer is natural, then the ID argument fails. It's very premise prohibits a natural designer. If it's a false choice, it's their false choice. They're the ones insisting that if it's not natural processes, then it's a designer.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor "supernatural by definition is outside of nature."
I thought "para" was Latin for outside, as in "paranormal". At any rate, it's a silly word with a self-contradictory definition. If nature is the real world governed by physical laws, how could something act outside of that?! Granted, we're still figuring out those laws, but we ought to assume that whatever we see, feel, touch, detect, can be explained by laws we either know, or will someday figure out.
seismedia 1 year ago
@theinquisitor "The point I've made three times now is that if the designer is natural, then the ID argument fails."
Unless the designer was/is natural and is/was empowered with knowledge of physical laws beyond ours? You're also making assumptions with respect to finite limits on time, assuming a beginning and an end. I wouldn't waste my time trying to disprove Creationism ( or ID), it seems to be set up with water tight logical constructs that don't pretend to be subject to scientific proof.
seismedia 1 year ago
@theinquisitor "They're the ones insisting that if it's not natural processes, then it's a designer."
Does ID accept the natural processes that are readily observable, at least? Like allele frequencies, genetic drift, animal breeding?
seismedia 1 year ago
@theinquisitor "their premise is that complex living things can't arise by natural processes"
Based on your earlier quotes, particularly the one from the ID web site, "certain features ... are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection", it would seem the emphasis is not on the word "natural", but on "undirected processes". And are they referring to speciation or simply expression of alleles when refuting "natural selection"?
seismedia 1 year ago
@seismedia, it depends who you ask. Michael Behe talks about the principle he called irreducible complexity. The idea that some structures in living things cannot arise in a stepwise process because taking one element out of the structure makes it non-functional. If you're interested in this level of detail, I recommend reading Michael Behe's book, or watching a relevant documentary. Then read the rebuttals to ID by evolutionary biologists. Bear in mind over 99% of biologists reject ID.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor "Michael Behe talks about the principle he called irreducible complexity"
Saw a Behe video, didn't know he was ID. He strikes me as an intelligent guy, though honestly, he was vague on details.
IC doesn't come into play on advanced structures unless you get into Abiogenesis and Miller-Urey's primordial soup, but then you don't need the advance structures, you just need to go after a small single cell organism.
However, strictly speaking, Darwin's Evolution is Anagenic.
seismedia 1 year ago
@theinquisitor "Bear in mind over 99% of biologists reject ID."
Why would that matter to me!? 67% of American voters through their lot in with Obama, FDR won in 1932 with 89% of the vote, and... Nixon had 97% of the vote in 1972. So much for the wisdom of the majority.
But this is science, so it matters even less if it was 99% or 1%. All that matters is whether or not something's true. That you would use consensus to support a scientific theory strikes me as rather odd.
seismedia 1 year ago
What program is this and where can you get a copy of it?
Socinus 1 year ago
@Socinus, read the annotations.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
watch some creationist post a video showing how the vic 20 was created at the same time as the sony vaio
al3699 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what a load of crap. Evolution is not a proven theory and does not show how added information is accomplished nor it's origin! Do some more digging and you will see it's not clear cut as many think.
156769 1 year ago
@156769, google: evolution adding information and the first five links talk about how evolutionary processes add information. Including the two youtube videos that show up, which are made by biologists. I've done plenty of digging, but I have listened to the creationists AND the biologists. Have you listened to what the biologists have to say? Have you read a book about evolution that wasn't written by a creationist? Have you listened to both sides? I mean really listened.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 21
@theinquisitor "Have you listened to both sides? I mean really listened."
Yes, and they're both ripe with confusion, intrigue, and outright dogma and perpetrated fallacies. It has become more interesting to watch the evolution of Evolutionary debate than to watch nature unfold or man's discoveries.
But lest discouragement take hold, there are plenty of honest scientists and theists who hold valiantly to the principle of embracing truth wherever they find it.
seismedia 1 year ago
@156769
"Evolution is not a proven theory "
No, but it has a load of evidence in its favor.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
@156769 you can say the same about religion(s) or god...Who cares man...i would like to see your take on a video where it claims book of genesis is totally accurate, i doubt it will be a copy paste from here, and evolution is not clear cut because it is not a linear path, it is a path of survival and adaptation. over millions of years, a timeframe that the human mind has a hard time understanding, which is why you believe in a 2,000 year old earth
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@156769 Go Troll somewhere else you fucking idiot, if you dont believe in evolution get the fuck out of here and go watch you gay jesus shit instead
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago
@156769 The phrase 'not a proven theory' is an oxymoron... just like 'not a round wheel' for it its not round... then its not a wheel...
The word theory itself denotes that it is 'the' explanation, In the case of evolution theory its also the only validated explanation...all other explanations are as yet invalid (not validated) .
So to recap there... The word for an 'unproven theory'... is 'hypothesis', which is a set of observations yet to be validated or explained.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@156769
Neither is gravity but I'm pretty sure you believe in that
Also, neither is God...
Grow up from the fairytales dude, I did
Mehmegadude 1 year ago
anyone denying evoution has obiously never had the common cold more than once, and presumably they didnt survive as fighting the common cold requires our antibodies to evolve, im a lamen, by n means an expert but cmon folks, 21st century here, evolution is the best explanation by a long way and the religosaurs arent coing up with anything even close never mind better
utrapzab 1 year ago 2
amazing video
S1nwar 1 year ago
Wow!!! This is VERY INTERESTING!!! Thanks for uploading!
gupsphoo 1 year ago
Nowadays, the key word for natural selection is MONEY !
tehuan1 1 year ago
I think the blue hockey player is showing him the finger at 3:09
luckystrke 1 year ago
I think it's ironic that an intelligence is behind this simulation.
futureredbirds 1 year ago
@futureredbirds, there's intelligence behind simulations of the weather too. Doesn't mean Zeus causes lightning.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 34
@theinquisitor Does point an intelligence behind physics.
radvermin 1 year ago
@radvermin, you can make that argument, but it does leave the question of where that intelligence comes from. A physics-creating intelligence is more complex than the physics it creates, and so it can only be the proximate cause at best, not the ultimate cause. Another potential explanation is a multitude of universes each with different physical laws, and we just happen to be in one condusive to life. This is an unanswered question, but a god doesn't work as an ultimate explanation for reality.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor I see the reverse. That less cannot create more. Guess we'll just differ on this point though :D
What is interesting (and I'm still working through atheism or theism) is that even though we know how lightning is created, Christians still hold that lightning can be caused by God. Even with the science God is still seen as the ultimate answer. What does that make God in light of natural evidence? I don't know... but apparently nature cannot explain away God apparently.
radvermin 1 year ago