Do not get this team ALLAH. You should stop killing civilians and begin to educate ourselves. You have no right to talk about science or anything that has to do with the brain. Whatever the story you just say Allah, Allah, Allah. Trying to present a culture but actually you maltretrate and disenfranchise women and children all have different opinions than you. You should be cut off because you're dead branches in the evolution čoviječanstva.
If man came from apes like Lemurs then why are there still monkeys like chimps still around ? My father was a man of god and not a dirty animal. Everyone is like a flame that be lit for ever in the face of god in his dream and will.
evolution is just a theory meaning it is an unproven and unaccepted guess made by the elite that call them self scientist so they can bend the moral will of the people of god.
Satan and you will not trick the open minded people into breeding with apes.
@ungenanntopffl Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning that in all reality it is fact. It has been tested, undergone tests, all of the possible things to disprove it, and ended up being true. It is a fact, but scientific theories can be facts. The same monkey which humans descended from no longer do exist, but broke off into many species. Chimpanzees and Humans came from the same ancestor. Atheists don't condone sex with non-humans. Human's are apes whether you like it or not, it's fact.
@TennisAnnalyst Did you NOT get my comment before? You have been talking on and on and I haven't been reading anything because you keep commenting, and I have no idea where your comments all are or what they are even replying to.
@TennisAnnalyst Ok. First of all, I see that you have commented to me a huge amount of times. I would ask, if you're going to try to describe anything to me, please do it over messaging as it's getting extremely confusing trying to find all of your comments and deciphering which reply goes with which comment.
@TennisAnnalyst Natural selection has never been observed to create new types. Yet macroevolution is exactly what Darwinists claim from the data. They say that these observable micro changes can be extrapolated to prove that unobservable macroevolution has occurred. They make no distinction between micro and macro, and thus use the evidence for micro to prove macro.
@irhjma30000 They dupe the general public into thinking that any observable change in any organism proves that all life has evolved from the first one-celled creature
this simply argues and explains how natural selection works. ID scientists don't deny natural selection at all, and they don't deny micro-evolution. the only thing they deny about Darwin's theory is macro-evolution and spontaneous generation. neither of which have been even remotely proven and actually have strong scientific evidence against them.
@SergeiTheAnarch They are not just different in scale....that is a ridiculous way of describing their difference. No person denies that micro-evolution occurs. Simple changes in species to adapt to their environments is not contended by anyone. Macro-evolution is not just evolution on a bigger scale than micro, it strives to explain how a reptile evolved into a bird, a monkey into a human, etc. That is change ACROSS species, not change within species. It is also the common ancestor belief.
@irhjma30000 all you had to do was answer the question... not be a douche about it. and... no. small changes become big changes. a gunshot for example a small adjustment of aim for a target at 100 meters will result in a huge change on a target at 500
@SergeiTheAnarch how was I being a douche? if I was, I wasn't trying to. I've had a long day. undoubtedly Darwin's theory states that small changes become big changes, but among other things that it doesn't explain, it still doesn't explain how those changes, no matter how big or small, can occur across a species. those types of changes have not been proven or observed at all.
Evolutionists like to use the analogy of the incomplete mouse trap. Of course, an incomplete mouse trap can last a long time until its human DESIGNER completes it. However, a partially-evolved cell, if it can ever get to that point, would quickly disintegrate in the real world. It cannot wait millions of years for chance to finish or complete it and then make it living! Please read my Internet article HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM. Just google the title.
@Mogley52 You're god recognizes your good deeds and you shall live forever with the lord because you realize the absolute truth. You will be rewarded for eternity. God will judge the unbelievers....so sad, I wish I could help them, but God makes it very clear that he'll send them to eternal damnation. If only their brains were wired like yours and mine!! We are so in......
Evolutionists like to use the analogy of the incomplete mouse trap. Of course, an incomplete mouse trap can last a long time until its human DESIGNER completes it. However, a partially-evolved cell, if it ever got to that point, would quickly disintegrate in the real world. It cannot wait for chance to finish or complete it and then make it living!
"The scientific method cannot be used to prove events which occurred outside of human observation. No one observed the origin of the universe by either chance or design, but scientific evidence via mathematical probability can be used to support either a chance or design origins for the universe" (From the article HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM).
mate this looks like it was thrown together by a teenager with only moderate understanding of what evolution is hopefully since 06 youve gotten better at this.
how can someone debunk something he even doesn't understand?
What did he debunk?
Do you think ID-ers deny natural selection? or random mutation?
The arguments he first showed were not ID arguments and then he tries to debunk it with something that has nothing to do with ID.
Why the selection story is wrong I cannot explain to you because because I'm only allowed to type 500 characters. But even Darwinist biologists wouldn't aprove this guys story. He's really a rookie on this subject
I very much enjoyed the use of the 'supercheetah', though in this case, we have already invoked the existence of a perfect entity with respect to which the idea of an optimal capacity for coping with an environmental issue is measured. How then are we to assume that God has not already been invoked?
@Gammaburster1 Whats there to know about ID other than its wrong! Anyway can you explain what Tf00t did wrong in his simulations, because I see nothing wrong with the points he put across. The simulations are not analgous to evolution on earth, they simply show how natural selection drives evolution. Whats your problem?
This is the dumbest argument I have seen to try debunk ID...you only got some modern art, but try getting the Mona Lisa dude with the random mutations & natural selection. PD: A donkey could have obtained the same results with a pen tied to its tail.
@raponte1955 well if your view is so, then you probally got something wrong here. you believe that what you think is right, just like all of us but, you beleive it so hard that your blind to things trying to prove you wrong. because i dont think im the only one who this made sense to.
Those simulations could be beefed up and you could make some modern art. Invite some creationists over and tell the ones who like the art that Evolution made the art. See what kind of reaction you can get XD
I shouldn't have said "all wrong". A lot of it is wrong. For example, anything based on selection veers off track, thus making everything based on it off track. Take peppered moths: the white ones didn't survive because they were more visible to preditors- white became recessive- no more white moths. There's no transitional species out of the white moth extinction, yet evolution wants us to believe that extinction events prove transition.
"selection veers off track"? what is this? it's nonsensical what you write.
recessive or dominant has nothing to do with natural selection, dumbshit.
definition of dominance in genetics: Dominance in genetics is a relationship between two variant forms (alleles) of a single gene, in which one allele masks the expression of the other in influencing some trait.
the predators had nothing to do with the dominance of white or black traits.
Dude, you still miss the point. Biological systems cannot tell which mutations are beneficial unless they confer some direct benefit. Most biological changes would require multiple mutations where each individual mutation would either be neutral or selected against. Your example assumes that every single mutation in the history of evolution is advantageous and therefore selected for.
Gravity: Scattered matter. Each particle of matter with random direction and random speed. That random direction and random speed can become order once in the presence of law.
ID contends that order cannot come about through random events and natural forces. This video is simply saying - Order can come about through random events and natural forces.
You don't believe "survival of the fittest" is a law. Ok - Just for a moment say that it is. If it is, then it could bring order to random.
@MrAristotelianattic ID does not talk about order, it talks about information. Watching the toilet flush can show that order come come about naturally but that kind of order is repetitive and redundant. The thing that makes ID proponents confident is the information in the universe and in living systems. DNA is not repetitive and redundant. It is specified and complex. Example: A book made entirely of the word "the" repeated over and over would have order but little information.
Hey - no need to be a jerk. Your statement was: "if fractals were a true example of less to more complex, you might as well say that water in a glass gets more "complex" as you fill it with more water."
I don't have a lot to go off here. If I misinterpreted your sentence, I did so only because your sentence was extraordinarily vague.
But, yeah, it does. You just like to say it doesn't because you want to have an explanation for all the order that is evident in nature. "Selection" is not an appropriate word for what you're talking about because selection implies a "selector". If nature is the selector, how did nature select itself before it existed?
@freehenrietta The word selection means:Survival of the fittest. Darwin never said: If random, then survive. He said: If fit, then survive. Suggesting a random mechanism is mis-portraying Darwin.
The selection mechanism = "survival of the fittest". Yes - nature is the selector. It didn't select itself. It selects out those that are not fit.
@MrAristotelianattic You really don't pay attention to words. Look up the word "select". I'm not portraying Darwin, I'm saying the wrong word is being used. As for "survival of the fittest", by it's name, it sounds logical. But the truth is that survival of the fittest doesn't have much to do with evolution. Things that can't survive in their immediate environment either die or move. Things that can survive, reproduce. What's that got to do with evolution? How did "nature" get here?
@freehenrietta Hold up. What is the subject we are addressing here? 1 at a time. Are we talking about: 1) Whether the video accurately displays natural selection? 2) Whether modern theory of evolution = natural selection? 3) Whether natural selection is the mechanism governing evolution? or 4) Where is nature come from?
@MrAristotelianattic Any or all are the topic. He claims that his designed program disproves ID. My arguments are based on his faulty reasoning and your faulty, circular, redendant argument. Neither of you are proving or disproving anything.
@MrAristotelianattic i don't believe it simulates natural selection. The video shows nothing to do with "fit" unless you want to say that the darker pixels were fit because they happened to make the picture. But that's really stretching it. Also, the other colors didn't "perish", they just didn't form the picture he created.
Well, you've got to understand his program as an analogy. He can't actually recreate true natural selection. Remember - he's not trying to prove natural selection. He's simply rebutting the idea that random events influenced by a rule cannot become orderly or complex.
The random pixels are analogous to the variation within a species. The image is analogous to fitness.
Analogies are particulars that seek to prove a universal. He's aiming for the universal here.
@MrAristotelianattic I really understand what you're saying..but, like I said, analogies don't prove or disprove anything. In fact, your example of fractals was more like an analogy than anything else- if fractals were a true example of less to more complex, you might as well say that water in a glass gets more "complex" as you fill it with more water. But that's not true.
@freehenrietta I see - it looks like your definition of proof is "induction". You don't believe in deductive logic, dialectic logic, analogical logic?
Oh your water example is an over-generalization.
My proposition = A simple thing CAN become complex. You are attempting a reductio ad absurdum beginning with the proposition: A simple thing MUST become complex. I'm not making that statement.
@MrAristotelianattic No, that's not what I'm saying...man you assume way too much. Pay attention to what I SAY, not what I DON'T say and you'll understand me.
I'm saying your example of fractals can be compared to my example of water. Neither one proves anything and they're really not even an example of random to complex. It's just a matter of taking the definition of "complex" literally. I have 1 apple, I add another 1- now I have 2. 2 is more complex than 1. So what?
@freehenrietta After reading this a second time - again - you are making an improper analogy. The water is not going from simple to complex in the way that a fractal pattern goes from simple to complex. Bad form.
I've got a huge term paper this weekend.. so I'm going to probably be off frequently..
@freehenrietta An example of a simple things that CAN become complex would be the formation of ice. Ice forms crystalline structures based on the electromagnetic forces of polar molecules.
With (b) He can't truly simulate fitness with pixels. So he has us imagine that the picture = fitness.
I understand you don't like that. So he created the second one. In the second one he simulated fitness through some type of equation. I guess we'd have to see which equation he was using. However - It's probably an algorithm that mimics observation in nature.
So to narrow down, with which part do you disagree?
@freehenrietta You don't disagree with his programs? Can you expound on that?
He even states that he's not proving or disproving evolution and that he's not proving or disproving ID. What he is proving is that random can be made ordered if under the effect of a law.
Eg. Fractals. Crystals.
Most ID supporters say that random cannot become ordered or complex. cdk007 is simply rebutting this proposition. He proves something: Random can become ordered and complex under influence of a law
@MrAristotelianattic His program is his program..what's to agree or disagree with?
Are you saying the title has nothing to do with the contents of the video? The title says he is trying to prove that ID is "wrong".
Fractals and crystals are not examples of random to order or complexity- nothing is random about them. Even if they were, you're saying it happens because of a "law". What "law" is that and how can it be scientifically proved?
But you said "I don't disagree with his program." I'm just trying to understand what you meant by that.
My brother programs fractals. Some types of fractals are produced by producing random dots and then placing them within the parameters of some type of law or algorithm.
Regarding crystals, they are formed by the laws of electromagnetism. The electromagnetic attraction defines their shape. Planets move around the sun according to the law of gravity.
When random matter is an area of space, they come together because of the law of gravity. Some gain movement and then the combination of momentum and gravity cause them to spin into an orbit.
Again - the concept is that random things under the influence of a law can become orderly.
The same is true of natural selection. The law that guides the random events in natural selection is "survival of the fittest"
@MrAristotelianattic Here's one of those evolutionist "assumptions" at work...you're assuming that things were out of order THEN gravity happened and brought it into order. Creationists assume that matter and gravity occurred simultaneously. Neither one can be proved or disproved but they both base TONS of information on those assumptions. The "if/then"s work for both in a lot of cases but if you can't prove the "if", the "then" is only speculation- not fact.
@freehenrietta I guess I made the assumption that you believed in the formation of orbits - sorry. I only made that statement because I thought you would have agreed. The theory of planetary orbit from natural forces is an argument a priori, not an argument a posteriori.
@freehenrietta You also mention the word "fact". Almost nothing can truly be proven as fact. I rarely use the word fact. When I'm discussing "proofs" I'm always referring to belief systems founded on agreed dialectic assumptions.
@freehenrietta A theoretical example (a priori) or an observed example (a posteriori)? A theoretical example would be one that flows from deduction (the superior logic). An observed example would be one that flows from induction (the inferior logic). If I go the superior route - I would deduce an instance from Newton's laws of motion. If I go the inferior route - I can't think of one that has been observed off the top of my head. I'll have to get back to you....
@MrAristotelianattic I'm asking for an example to prove a point but that response will do fine for now..
When something goes from non-orbital to orbital all it means is that it got closer to the matter with gravitational pull, lost speed, and/or lost mass. The orbit is the effect of gravity. It's not that gravity didn't exist before the orbit, it's that any combination of distance, speed, and/or mass prevented us from observing gravity at work.
@MrAristotelianattic Of course it can. It's been observed and explained as gravititational force. It makes sense, can be observed and explained and there's no other idea (so far) that opposes it. But I'm not sure what you think it proves relative to this conversation. Are you saying that movement of matter is random until the matter orbits something?
@freehenrietta lol - I'm not understanding your point. I'm simply responding to your statements about orbits.
I brought up orbits as an example of random things under the influence of a law. When random things are affected by a law they can become ordered. - Which is essentially the thesis of the video.
@MrAristotelianattic I guess you need to define "random". Matter that already exists in it's present form having it's projectory changed is not an example of random to ordered as evolution defines random to ordered. In evolution it means that something that exists in present form evolved from something totally different from its present form, period. Gravity is not part of the theory of evolution and doesn't explain anything about it.
@freehenrietta "Something that exists in present form evolved from something totally different from its present form."
What does that even mean? Either you're trying to define Evolution in the most complicated way possible or you have no idea what Evolution is. I'll give you the short definition of Evolution: Organisms change over time, period.
@godlynessdog I'm not going to keep saying this (after this time): micro-evolution is not arguable- it's been observed. Macro-evolution is arguable- it's never been observed and contradicts the evidence.
@freehenrietta 1st: When do you break off and say something is macro-evolution? What you may consider micro-evolution another person may consider macro. 2nd: When has macro-evolution EVER contradicted the evidence? I want you to look at the fossil record and see if you can tell me it contradicts macro evolution.
@freehenrietta Conceding that *any* evolution occurs implies macroevolution occurs because no information is stored about what a change was change *from*. Without a 'trail of breadcrumbs' back into time, there is no conceivable mechanism that could stop change from merely accumulating. Change is limited only by the practicalities of what can survive and reproduce. And, if you look at nature, you will see that is pretty diverse!
@Akita538 I can go with the idea that micro-evolution, over time, adds up to macro-evolution. My problem is with the way evolution explains macro-evolution. For instance, the evolutionary theory involving extinction is all wrong; therefore, anything based on the extinction conclusions is also wrong. That's a huge part of the phylogenetic tree's invalidity. If the tree is wrong, pretty much all other conclusions are, at least in part, wrong also.
"is all wrong"? why? proof by assertion is a logical fallacy. your personal opinion does not substitute the FACT that evo theory explain extinction of species.
therefore everything based on extinction is right. your personal opinion is as valuable as bug shit.
@MrAristotelianattic "Survival of the fittest" is not a law. It's a guess that would support another guess (natural selection) if the first guess were true. But neither of them can be proved and that's the problem. Then, more guesses are based on those guesses and the less right any of those guesses are, the more wrong it's subsequent guesses will be.
In evolution, everything began as "random" and became "orderly". In creationism, everything began orderly and (mostly) remains orderly.
@freehenrietta "Survival of the fittest" is a poor way of describing natural selection. Higher probability of the survival of the fitter would be more like it. The genes of the fitter, ie: better fitted to thrive in their environment, are more likely to be passed on than those of the less fit. Sometimes the fitter will be killed before they can breed and sometimes the less fit will be lucky and breed anyway.
I'm confused...this was supposed to prove ID wrong (look at the title). But yet, it seems to me, that all it did was prove that ID is, at the least, likely, and natural selection isn't. The first video showed how, with a designer, a goal can in fact be produced. The second video showed that, without a designer, you get a bunch of blobs. Natural selection, along with the rest of evolution, can not possibly produce anything but a bunch of "blobs".
@freehenrietta No - he's showing that ID is wrong. He's giving a visual demonstration of survival of the fittest. The only thing is - he's using pixels. How do show which pixel is the most "fit"? Since pixels don't fight for any particular goal, he had to find a goal. (Animals do have a goal - survival.) So the "fit" pixels were the ones that matched the picture. People misunderstood the video and thought it demonstrated design - so he gave pixels a new goal in the second video.
@MrAristotelianattic But each one had a designer and he made it do what he wanted it to do. I still don't understand how it disproves ID...still seems to support it.
@freehenrietta Well - he's trying to demonstrate something. To demonstrate something, you have to design it. I feel as if you are asking him to Design a demonstration without Designing it.
Let's say I ask you to Design a homemade volcano to demonstrate how a volcano works. But don't Design it! Do it without designing. The reason why you couldn't do this is not a theological or philosophical conundrum. Humans simply can't create demonstrations without designing them!
@MrAristotelianattic Are you familiar with the principles of natural selection. Try to seriously understand what he's trying to show you. He's taking principles of natural selection and illustrating them - with a computer program. I really wish he could create a program to demonstrate with Designing - but unfortunately - he's just inept in that way. cdk007 simply isn't talented enough to write programs without designing them. (so none of his demonstrations will ever please you)
@MrAristotelianattic In the very first demonstration on the first video, beforehe made the ramdom specs turn into a south park character,everything was random. He did not program a "goal".He couldn't- then it wouldn't be random and, therefore, would not have simulated selection.The first one is theonly one that even comes close to the mechanisms of selection,but yet it produced nothing more than whatit started with.It started as a random sequence of specs and ended as a random sequence of specs.
@MrAristotelianattic I'm not really asking him to do anything. I'm just saying it doesn't PROVE anything- nothing for or against ID; nothing for or against evolution conclusively. But, it does seem to support ID by showing that, without a deliberate design (done by a "designer"), things won't do what you want them to...unless what you want random disorder. But, with a design/designer, deliberate and ordered results can occur.
@freehenrietta Are you familiar with the mechanisms behind natural selection? He does a very good job of illustrating them. Each factor he simulates is a factor that comes from Darwin's understanding of nature.
But - how is he supposed to show us that without designing a program? You say he hasn't proven anything - he's proven that using the mechanisms of selection, truly random events can lead to ordered events. But your contention is that he wrote a program. That's a silly contention.
@freehenrietta Human-made simulations of the real world require a human designer because we're human. Sorry. I wish he could escape this ridiculous impossibility. But it's silly to expect that. Simulations always require a human to make it. But those are Simulations. Weathermen have to design simulations to predict weather - that's because they are humans. Game programmers create simulations of reality. That in no way proves that reality requires a designer.
@freehenrietta What you're saying is analogous to saying: "Ghost Recon (the video game) was designed by humans" - therefore the world must have been designed.
C'mon - that's silly. Ghost Recon is a simulation designed by programmers. That's how human beings mimic undesigned things - by designing them. That's something humans by nature must do.
@MrAristotelianattic That's not what I'm saying. Obviously nature and technology are not synonymous. Which leads me, again, to say "it doesn't *prove* anything" about ID or evolution. Look at what you just said, then tell me how these designed computer programs can prove anything about something that occurs naturally. And, again, IF it does anything, it MORE supports design/designer than chance- whether you're talking about nature or technology.
@MrAristotelianattic No he hasn't. He proved that *if he designes* a computer program to make random things into something recognizable, the program will work. He proved that *if he designs* a computer program to make colors drift toward like colors, they will. "Mechanisms of selection"= absolute random chance. Neither of those *programs* allowed for chance. You're trying too hard. You want his point to be valid because, if it were (which it's not) it might help "prove" something.
@freehenrietta Again - How else can he demonstrate this?????????????????
Simulations have to be designed. You are denying your logic - But you are most definitely making an argument analogous to: Designers made Ghost Recon. Therefore, designers made reality.
@freehenrietta He's proven that using the mechanisms of selection, truly random events can lead to ordered events.
You're misinterpreting this sim as a Proof that evolution definitely happened. That's not what this is. It is a Rebut to the ID claim that complex order Must come from design. He's Rebutting by showing that complex order Can emerge from the interaction of random events under the laws of nature.
You have presented an excellent argument. Did you design these computer models yourself? Has this been submitted to the academic community yet? It should be.
Listen to the scientists. Mutations result in a loss of information in the genome. Read J. C. Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of Genome. Sanford has 25 genetic patents, and is the inventor of the gene gun. He thoroughly refutes the belief that evolution results from "good" mutations selection by nature. There are many reviews of Sanford's book on Amazon.
I thought we already discussed Mr. Sanford's papers in the other video? His scientific publications do not refute anything about good mutations. Go re-read his papers and let me know what you find.
Hint: He is talking about extreme genetic isolation.
No, u haven't shown that, u just applied filters and got some colors, u didn't prove anything about evolution, natural selection, or anything else... Haha srry better luck next time :) go to my channel and website!!!
@SumPanisVitae Divinity is defined by being esoteric knowledge. It is out of reach from observation (scientific reasoning). Yet for the divine to become provable by material means is to demean its 'divinity'. So the divine must retain its mystery/ambiguity or else it'd become self-irrelevant. but this means that divinity is far removed from human concerns. The only support for divinity would be its accounts of conviction/perception: all arbitrary and trivial to its realization and true identity.
@SumPanisVitae "Since the dawn of times man belives in the "invisible"." ; "Probably our view point on how god is tells more about us than him." SO TRUE, this reminds me a lot about Feuerbachs philosophy. The divine is nothing else then the projection of the humans strengths, desires and fears on a supernatural level. About "a major part of universe is completly ignored by you": well, I consider everything i can see, or know about. What I can't see usually can't affect me. Physics are true e.w.
@SummerDay0001 There is no point to life, what made you say that?
If your question is "why does evolution produce fitter, more adept life forms?" then that's OBVIOUS.
You have an animal which has two children, one child is stronger than the other, the weaker child has a higher chance of dying off leaving the stronger to reproduce.
Questioning natural selection is perhaps the STUPIDEST way of trying to "disprove" evolution (which is impossible because evolution has been observed).
@ihaterobbie123 what made me say that?People have brains and they think, ppl are asking questions like ''why'', other organism don't do this, ok we evolved that way you say-.
We were using our brains to figure out that we evolved but yet some ppl think that we were created? they are not stupid becouse they think like that, ....(...)
@SummerDay0001 They aren't stupid? If there was no evidence for evolution, if evolution hadn't been observed, if evolution wasn't a confirmed fact with a strong theory...then your statement would be true.
There are clever people, who HAVEN'T looked into evolution at all out there. I could be the next Albert Einstein and believe in creationism because I'd been mislead.
With the internet, there is no excuse.
I believe there is no point to life, if there was it wouldn't be worth living.
@ihaterobbie123 yes, it is observed that evolution exist, but it doesnt prove anything. if it is truth, it means that we evolved from nothing. there was nothing in the beginning, before ''bigbang''. You are saying that we evolved but it had to be something in the begining.
You cant disprove existence of God with evolution, so dont say that ppl have been misled, your theory is not better theory=theory.
@ihaterobbie123 (...)they are using the same brain, there are actully smart plp out there that are creationists, who is right then? Im not trying to disprove evolution, i know organism are changing in generations, but i do not belive that our grandfather is hydrogen or bacteria.
@SummerDay0001@SummerDay0001 "the point of life is to make new life" why? there is no real reason, it is just the way it works.
That is why for example natural selection only applies to the age the lifeform is able to reproduce, there is no code in our genome that codes for what to happen after we passed our fertile lifespan (except from our behaviour against our kids and so on, so thinks that do influence the success of our genomes in the new generations)
@silentfighter2 this is your understanding of world, but we dont understand the universe. We can explain some things that are on our planet, but what about the rest of the universe? There is no prove for anything. I understand what is your way of thinking, but i belive in something bigger, try to understand me.
@SummerDay0001 I think I might understand what drives you to search for a divine existence, I would love to believe in it, it would be a great feeling. But sadly I cannot because I live and think following rational rules. About not understanding the universe: this may be a great occasion to learn even more, discover new things, I don't consider it a reason to believe in a divine form. But there is one thing about the divine I am sure about: ir is NOT the god of the bible, of the Qur'an or so on.
Fyi Mr. video maker guy- there is an intelligence behind you're experiments ( therefore the data, as you claim it to be, does not match you're claims). Also! Mr. Video maker guy- explain the intelligence behind evolution.... It is "scientifically proven" that DNA can not hold information, it is only a messenger for information. Also Mr. Video maker guy keep in mind that nothing in reality exist, everything is made up of tiny forces of pure energy in a mostly (99.9999%) empty space. That is scie
@SumPanisVitae ~I agree that the process is much more complex. Unfortunately, this venue is so limiting that an in-depth investigation or discussion is impractical...good luck on your investigations, though. My own research is elsewhere and not germaine (lateral thinking)...
@SumPanisVitae ~If you are pinning your hopes on using algorithms to solve the problem, you will be unsuccessful...biology is not like mathematic algorithms as there are influences that cannot be foreseen that operate on a random basis..such as the effect of gamma ray bursts, R-ray exposure, viral incorporation, bacterial intrusion, etc. Algorithms cannot account for such things as chromosome fusion, or for simple diease processes by such things as HIV, which have no DNA. Not gonna work...
@SumPanisVitae I'd recommend some good reading on evolution that might be of interest if you're into building simulations.
If you've not read them Dawkins The Selfish Gene and Eva Jablonka's Evolution in Four Dimensions provide a couple of looks at the same thing from two different angles. Or even Denis Lamoureux's Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution.
@SumPanisVitae It's well known that the fixation rate of beneficial traits in the pool has to outstrip the natural degradation caused by random mutation to drive evolution.
Not all organisms have the same rate of mutations, not all replicators have the same rate of mutation. So there is also selection between DNA based replicators vs RNA or prion based replicators.
Evolution has developed normalisation processes to counter the effects of natural mutation. These need to accounted for too.
@SumPanisVitae There are actually people who have utilized genetic algorithms to find near optimal solutions to the traveling salesman problem. Search for: traveling salesman genetic algorithm.
@SumPanisVitae I really don't have enough information to figure out what is going on in the internals of your program. I do know that evolution by natural selection has been observed, and also that genetic algorithms have been used to solve engineering problems. The theory works.
If you think that you have something with your algorithm, you should write it up and submit it for publication.
@SumPanisVitae I stand corrected on the mutation rate. The sources seem to conflict on the number. This doesn't change the fact that evolution has been observed both in the field and in the lab.
Maybe it is the case that very few mutations have a marked effect on survivability, and when beneficial mutations occur, they stand out enought to make a difference for the survival of the individual.
@SumPanisVitae I looked up the mutation rate in humans, it's about 3 new mutations per person, with a lot of variance. People with one mutation would give a clear advantage to beneficial muations.
You might try lowering your mutation rate to one per individual, and run the simulation for more generations. High mutation rates are known to be detrimental in the real world, and evolution is a slow process. Also, be sure the population is large enough to be stable.
@SumPanisVitae In your algorithm, is each route mutated for each generation, or is only one route mutated at a time, or some other mutation rate? How large is your population?
@SumPanisVitae Random changes and natural selection are enough to explain evolution. If you think you've got a computer model sophisticated enough to prove otherwise - call the people at the Nobel Foundation and ask for an application form.
@SumPanisVitae Evolution has actually been measured in living species, and the trends correlated with changes in the environment. In experiments, changes in the environment lead to evolution by natural selection. To me, it doesn't seem reasonable to ignore these findings.
@SumPanisVitae I'm going to think intuitively about the real world. If an individual has both a beneficial and a detrimental mutation, they would somewhat cancel each other out. This isn't quite true, because which mutation comes into play in the individual's life depends on the circumstances encountered in the individual's life. Hopefully, I will never find myself in a jungle without my corrective lenses! Even though the situation is muddled in such an individual ...
... there would typically be other individuals with the beneficial mutation, without the detrimental mutation. Because of this, the beneficial mutation would still tend to spread through the population.
Now I'm interested in finding out what the mutation rate is in humans.
Keep in mind that my thoughts here are based on intuition, and may be incorrect.
@SumPanisVitae Is each route considered an individual in your simulations? It sounds like you are combining the function values of mutiple routes. I'm not sure of the details of your algorithm.
@SumPanisVitae Also, it sounds to me that your are combining ideas from genetic algorithms, and virtual reality. Genetic algorithms generally don't simulate the circumstances of indifidual deaths. It sounds to me that you are. Is this correct?
@SumPanisVitae If some individuals are faster, more agile or more age resistant, then wouldn't those values amount to a fitness function? The attribute values determine survival, if I'm understanding correctly.
By the way, I think I'm getting what your emphasis is, focusing on reproduction rather than death. In real life, some species actually do assure survival by having huge numbers of offspring. Is this your point?
@SumPanisVitae Is it possible to avoid being eaten by say being faster than the foe, or is being eaten a completely random event? Does every individual die of old age at a specific age, or are some individuals deamed healthier, and live longer (provided they don't get eaten, or starve)?
Will whoever is flagging SumPanisVitae's comments as spam please cease! We are actually having a conversation, and it's difficult when comments are closed. Please don't abuse the spam flag option.
@SumPanisVitae The beneficial mutation would improve the fitness score, and the detrimental mutation would lower the score. This mirrors reality. I'm a bright guy, and that probably counts in my favor. I'm also extremely near sighted. I'd probably die in a jungle without my corrective lenses. If I died, no problem (well, for me there is!), the world goes on with many other bright people. The point is, beneficial mutations *tend* to propogate through the population.
@SumPanisVitae The ambigous wording of your previous reply gave me this idea.
OK, then back to the calculation of individual fitness by way of the sum of weighted functions. The fitness of each individual is indepenent of the other. This means the complexity of the calculations for the population is linear relative to the number of individuals. Linear complexity is considered quite scalable in computer science. There is no problem doing the calculations. Don't pretend that there is.
@SumPanisVitae You certainly see specialisation causing trouble for species. Look at the poor giant panda, it's a carnivore that's managed to survive, sort of, by finding just one plant it can eat. Or maybe specialisation of habitat - the yangtze river dolphin gone, and the other Platanistoidea on their way.
I'm not a fan of modeling. Looking at the real world reveals all sorts of surprises. If you can fit the surprises to the rule as well as the norm, then the chances are it's a very good rule.
@meenymousy I agree, modeling doesn't capture all aspects of the real world. However, the fact that modeling based on the theory of evolution has been utilized successfully to solve complex engineering problems that humans could not solve, this validates the theory of evolution. Essentially, genetic algorithms can produce "designs" without a designer. I think it's very cool.
Of course, nature does have surprises, and I am awed by nature as well.
@SumPanisVitae VARIATION <-- evolution produces this thing. As the genetic pack is shuffled at each meiosis, and each individual carries 2 (or often many more) versions of every gene, plus the natural rate of mutation on top - there will always be variation in the gene pool. If a major change in environment takes place, then the selective sweep of those individuals best adapted for the new environment will drive evolution rapidly at that point.
@SumPanisVitae What you are saying is sheer nonsense on multiple levels. Why would you even want to create a fitness function that calculates based on the entire population, when it is actually the individual that faces natural selection. Secondly, even if you did for some twisted reason want to create such a meaningless model, the computer has absolutely no problem calculating the sum.
Part two - The proper way to simulate selection in a population is to calculate the fitness function on each individual of the population. The individuals survive or die based on the fitness value for that individual. This is indeed how genetic algorithms work, and they do work. SumPanisVitae, don't even think about saying that it isn't so. Computer science is my field, and I've actually implemented genetic algorithms.
@SumPanisVitae "first a mutation could be benefical at short term and fatal at large term" Exactomundo. Which is why evolution thought of this before you did and clever organisms don't just ditch old capabilities, they 'turn them off' or sideline them. Your mammalian diving reflex is an example of this. One day our ancestors might need to go back to the sea.
Obesity is slowly killing millions in the west but come the next ice-age we might need a few fatties to get us through.
@SumPanisVitae There is no reason why the fitness of a being composed of many parts can not be evaluated. In the model, calculate a waeighted sum of the formulas. In nature, many factors are weighted simulaneously. The survival of a bunny hopping across the snow while a hawk flies overhead is determined by many aspects, including speed, agility, eye accuity and fur color. Nature does not have your pecular requirement of evaluating one attribute only. Don't argue with reality.
@SumPanisVitae The video that I pointed you to deals with your first argument. Can you see the population shifting back and forth between white and black? The white variation spells out death in the black environment, and vica-virca. Yet the variation allows for the shifting back and forth as needed. Moth populations have been observed shifting from dark to light to dark as the trees that they rested on shifted from dark to light (because of pollutants) and back again. Don't argue with reality.
@SumPanisVitae The models of evolution are well tested, you don't need to worry your head.
Victor has explained it to you well. Also don't forget that real-world traits are mostly polygenic and you're having to model a selection of gene combinations rather than a simple selection.
Very beneficial mutations can also benefit from 'hitchhiking', accelerating their deployment in the pool as happened with the mutation some 3-7k years ago that allowed man to tolerate lactose outside of infancy.
@SumPanisVitae An individual can have both beneficial and detrimental mutations. In the typical case, the beneficial mutation exists in multiple individuals, tending to spread through the population over generations, even if the individual that you've pointed out dies before reproducing. Occassionally, a beneficial mutation may perish. Even this is not a problem, since a population typically contains many beneficial mutations, and the population tends to become well adapted to the environment.
Do not get this team ALLAH. You should stop killing civilians and begin to educate ourselves. You have no right to talk about science or anything that has to do with the brain. Whatever the story you just say Allah, Allah, Allah. Trying to present a culture but actually you maltretrate and disenfranchise women and children all have different opinions than you. You should be cut off because you're dead branches in the evolution čoviječanstva.
Ja2so4 3 weeks ago in playlist Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism
If man came from apes like Lemurs then why are there still monkeys like chimps still around ? My father was a man of god and not a dirty animal. Everyone is like a flame that be lit for ever in the face of god in his dream and will.
evolution is just a theory meaning it is an unproven and unaccepted guess made by the elite that call them self scientist so they can bend the moral will of the people of god.
Satan and you will not trick the open minded people into breeding with apes.
Love ALLAH
ungenanntopffl 2 months ago
@ungenanntopffl Learn what theory means in science. Ignorant moron.
Drgamedood 2 months ago in playlist More videos from cdk007
@ungenanntopffl Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning that in all reality it is fact. It has been tested, undergone tests, all of the possible things to disprove it, and ended up being true. It is a fact, but scientific theories can be facts. The same monkey which humans descended from no longer do exist, but broke off into many species. Chimpanzees and Humans came from the same ancestor. Atheists don't condone sex with non-humans. Human's are apes whether you like it or not, it's fact.
Vampirosaurusrex 2 months ago
@TennisAnnalyst Did you NOT get my comment before? You have been talking on and on and I haven't been reading anything because you keep commenting, and I have no idea where your comments all are or what they are even replying to.
irhjma30000 2 months ago
@TennisAnnalyst Ok. First of all, I see that you have commented to me a huge amount of times. I would ask, if you're going to try to describe anything to me, please do it over messaging as it's getting extremely confusing trying to find all of your comments and deciphering which reply goes with which comment.
irhjma30000 2 months ago
@TennisAnnalyst Natural selection has never been observed to create new types. Yet macroevolution is exactly what Darwinists claim from the data. They say that these observable micro changes can be extrapolated to prove that unobservable macroevolution has occurred. They make no distinction between micro and macro, and thus use the evidence for micro to prove macro.
irhjma30000 2 months ago
@irhjma30000 They dupe the general public into thinking that any observable change in any organism proves that all life has evolved from the first one-celled creature
irhjma30000 2 months ago
this simply argues and explains how natural selection works. ID scientists don't deny natural selection at all, and they don't deny micro-evolution. the only thing they deny about Darwin's theory is macro-evolution and spontaneous generation. neither of which have been even remotely proven and actually have strong scientific evidence against them.
irhjma30000 2 months ago
@irhjma30000 and macro evolution and micro evolution are different other than scale how?
SergeiTheAnarch 2 months ago
@SergeiTheAnarch They are not just different in scale....that is a ridiculous way of describing their difference. No person denies that micro-evolution occurs. Simple changes in species to adapt to their environments is not contended by anyone. Macro-evolution is not just evolution on a bigger scale than micro, it strives to explain how a reptile evolved into a bird, a monkey into a human, etc. That is change ACROSS species, not change within species. It is also the common ancestor belief.
irhjma30000 2 months ago
@irhjma30000 all you had to do was answer the question... not be a douche about it. and... no. small changes become big changes. a gunshot for example a small adjustment of aim for a target at 100 meters will result in a huge change on a target at 500
SergeiTheAnarch 2 months ago
@SergeiTheAnarch how was I being a douche? if I was, I wasn't trying to. I've had a long day. undoubtedly Darwin's theory states that small changes become big changes, but among other things that it doesn't explain, it still doesn't explain how those changes, no matter how big or small, can occur across a species. those types of changes have not been proven or observed at all.
irhjma30000 2 months ago
Hah, as an advertisement to go with this video YouTube, for me, selected an ad for a CD with Christian songs :P
Whatsifsowhatsit 3 months ago
It would've been so fuckin' funny if you suddenly made the god's picture appear in the last generation.
kemalettinificatable 5 months ago
Evolutionists like to use the analogy of the incomplete mouse trap. Of course, an incomplete mouse trap can last a long time until its human DESIGNER completes it. However, a partially-evolved cell, if it can ever get to that point, would quickly disintegrate in the real world. It cannot wait millions of years for chance to finish or complete it and then make it living! Please read my Internet article HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM. Just google the title.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 You're god recognizes your good deeds and you shall live forever with the lord because you realize the absolute truth. You will be rewarded for eternity. God will judge the unbelievers....so sad, I wish I could help them, but God makes it very clear that he'll send them to eternal damnation. If only their brains were wired like yours and mine!! We are so in......
alg573 3 months ago in playlist Debates
Evolutionists like to use the analogy of the incomplete mouse trap. Of course, an incomplete mouse trap can last a long time until its human DESIGNER completes it. However, a partially-evolved cell, if it ever got to that point, would quickly disintegrate in the real world. It cannot wait for chance to finish or complete it and then make it living!
Mogley52 5 months ago
Must read article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS. Just google the title.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 Calling punctuated evolution a "war" is hyperbole. It's simply a different view of evolution.
VictorLaszloLives 5 months ago
"The scientific method cannot be used to prove events which occurred outside of human observation. No one observed the origin of the universe by either chance or design, but scientific evidence via mathematical probability can be used to support either a chance or design origins for the universe" (From the article HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM).
Mogley52 5 months ago
mate this looks like it was thrown together by a teenager with only moderate understanding of what evolution is hopefully since 06 youve gotten better at this.
werewolf873 5 months ago
By the way, what you said before:"Whats there to know about ID other than its wrong!"
Said it all. You are already made up your mind so it's useless to point out where he went wrong.
Gammaburster1 6 months ago
@ quantum,
how can someone debunk something he even doesn't understand?
What did he debunk?
Do you think ID-ers deny natural selection? or random mutation?
The arguments he first showed were not ID arguments and then he tries to debunk it with something that has nothing to do with ID.
Why the selection story is wrong I cannot explain to you because because I'm only allowed to type 500 characters. But even Darwinist biologists wouldn't aprove this guys story. He's really a rookie on this subject
Gammaburster1 6 months ago
I very much enjoyed the use of the 'supercheetah', though in this case, we have already invoked the existence of a perfect entity with respect to which the idea of an optimal capacity for coping with an environmental issue is measured. How then are we to assume that God has not already been invoked?
bhavasindhu108 6 months ago
wow. this is really stupidity of the first degree.
this guy not only don't know shit about ID, he even don't know shit about the evolution theory.
Gammaburster1 6 months ago
@Gammaburster1 Whats there to know about ID other than its wrong! Anyway can you explain what Tf00t did wrong in his simulations, because I see nothing wrong with the points he put across. The simulations are not analgous to evolution on earth, they simply show how natural selection drives evolution. Whats your problem?
QuantumOverlord 6 months ago
This is great. We go from the new ABUs to the older BDUs. Shows the AF highers up. Bitches.
HimesInu 6 months ago
This is the dumbest argument I have seen to try debunk ID...you only got some modern art, but try getting the Mona Lisa dude with the random mutations & natural selection. PD: A donkey could have obtained the same results with a pen tied to its tail.
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955 well if your view is so, then you probally got something wrong here. you believe that what you think is right, just like all of us but, you beleive it so hard that your blind to things trying to prove you wrong. because i dont think im the only one who this made sense to.
marcoaslak 7 months ago
@marcoaslak Try speaking more coherently.
raponte1955 7 months ago
What..? This is so stupid, you make completely bogus arguments dude.
MrKevin396 8 months ago
Those simulations could be beefed up and you could make some modern art. Invite some creationists over and tell the ones who like the art that Evolution made the art. See what kind of reaction you can get XD
ScrakeShredder 8 months ago
i like the music~
Nazarus8 8 months ago
I shouldn't have said "all wrong". A lot of it is wrong. For example, anything based on selection veers off track, thus making everything based on it off track. Take peppered moths: the white ones didn't survive because they were more visible to preditors- white became recessive- no more white moths. There's no transitional species out of the white moth extinction, yet evolution wants us to believe that extinction events prove transition.
freehenrietta 9 months ago
@freehenrietta
"selection veers off track"? what is this? it's nonsensical what you write.
recessive or dominant has nothing to do with natural selection, dumbshit.
definition of dominance in genetics: Dominance in genetics is a relationship between two variant forms (alleles) of a single gene, in which one allele masks the expression of the other in influencing some trait.
the predators had nothing to do with the dominance of white or black traits.
white moths were not extinct. dumbshit.
transtlantic 9 months ago
@freehenrietta
Peppered moth is the name of ONE species, dumbshit.
Biston betularia is the name.
Biston the name of the Genus.
the example presented by selection of peppered moth due to predation, is an example for natural selection, not speciation.
extinction events don't prove transition. common ancestry is what proves transitional species, dumbshit.
extinction events are just that: events.
are you mentally challenged?
transtlantic 9 months ago
You're projecting your intelligence into your experiment while using many undefined terms. For example, what is "good"?
Also your arguments are rebutted in Signature in the Cell so please read before concluding.
jmoore125 9 months ago
Dude, you still miss the point. Biological systems cannot tell which mutations are beneficial unless they confer some direct benefit. Most biological changes would require multiple mutations where each individual mutation would either be neutral or selected against. Your example assumes that every single mutation in the history of evolution is advantageous and therefore selected for.
smitty0521 9 months ago
Gravity: Scattered matter. Each particle of matter with random direction and random speed. That random direction and random speed can become order once in the presence of law.
ID contends that order cannot come about through random events and natural forces. This video is simply saying - Order can come about through random events and natural forces.
You don't believe "survival of the fittest" is a law. Ok - Just for a moment say that it is. If it is, then it could bring order to random.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic ID does not talk about order, it talks about information. Watching the toilet flush can show that order come come about naturally but that kind of order is repetitive and redundant. The thing that makes ID proponents confident is the information in the universe and in living systems. DNA is not repetitive and redundant. It is specified and complex. Example: A book made entirely of the word "the" repeated over and over would have order but little information.
smitty0521 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey - no need to be a jerk. Your statement was: "if fractals were a true example of less to more complex, you might as well say that water in a glass gets more "complex" as you fill it with more water."
I don't have a lot to go off here. If I misinterpreted your sentence, I did so only because your sentence was extraordinarily vague.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
you're making me dizzy with your circular logic
lennyf1957 10 months ago
@lennyf1957 Who is?
freehenrietta 10 months ago
But, yeah, it does. You just like to say it doesn't because you want to have an explanation for all the order that is evident in nature. "Selection" is not an appropriate word for what you're talking about because selection implies a "selector". If nature is the selector, how did nature select itself before it existed?
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta The word selection means:Survival of the fittest. Darwin never said: If random, then survive. He said: If fit, then survive. Suggesting a random mechanism is mis-portraying Darwin.
The selection mechanism = "survival of the fittest". Yes - nature is the selector. It didn't select itself. It selects out those that are not fit.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic You really don't pay attention to words. Look up the word "select". I'm not portraying Darwin, I'm saying the wrong word is being used. As for "survival of the fittest", by it's name, it sounds logical. But the truth is that survival of the fittest doesn't have much to do with evolution. Things that can't survive in their immediate environment either die or move. Things that can survive, reproduce. What's that got to do with evolution? How did "nature" get here?
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta Hold up. What is the subject we are addressing here? 1 at a time. Are we talking about: 1) Whether the video accurately displays natural selection? 2) Whether modern theory of evolution = natural selection? 3) Whether natural selection is the mechanism governing evolution? or 4) Where is nature come from?
Let's stay on topic here.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic Any or all are the topic. He claims that his designed program disproves ID. My arguments are based on his faulty reasoning and your faulty, circular, redendant argument. Neither of you are proving or disproving anything.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta Easy, easy. Let's address each issue separately so as to avoid confusion.
Remember - the video is only addressing a claim of ID and rebutting it.
So we'll start with 1) Does the video display an accurate simulation of natural selection?
Well - natural selection proposes that a) variation exist. and b) individuals that are not fit perish.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic i don't believe it simulates natural selection. The video shows nothing to do with "fit" unless you want to say that the darker pixels were fit because they happened to make the picture. But that's really stretching it. Also, the other colors didn't "perish", they just didn't form the picture he created.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta
Well, you've got to understand his program as an analogy. He can't actually recreate true natural selection. Remember - he's not trying to prove natural selection. He's simply rebutting the idea that random events influenced by a rule cannot become orderly or complex.
The random pixels are analogous to the variation within a species. The image is analogous to fitness.
Analogies are particulars that seek to prove a universal. He's aiming for the universal here.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic I really understand what you're saying..but, like I said, analogies don't prove or disprove anything. In fact, your example of fractals was more like an analogy than anything else- if fractals were a true example of less to more complex, you might as well say that water in a glass gets more "complex" as you fill it with more water. But that's not true.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta I see - it looks like your definition of proof is "induction". You don't believe in deductive logic, dialectic logic, analogical logic?
Oh your water example is an over-generalization.
My proposition = A simple thing CAN become complex. You are attempting a reductio ad absurdum beginning with the proposition: A simple thing MUST become complex. I'm not making that statement.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic No, that's not what I'm saying...man you assume way too much. Pay attention to what I SAY, not what I DON'T say and you'll understand me.
I'm saying your example of fractals can be compared to my example of water. Neither one proves anything and they're really not even an example of random to complex. It's just a matter of taking the definition of "complex" literally. I have 1 apple, I add another 1- now I have 2. 2 is more complex than 1. So what?
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta After reading this a second time - again - you are making an improper analogy. The water is not going from simple to complex in the way that a fractal pattern goes from simple to complex. Bad form.
I've got a huge term paper this weekend.. so I'm going to probably be off frequently..
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@freehenrietta An example of a simple things that CAN become complex would be the formation of ice. Ice forms crystalline structures based on the electromagnetic forces of polar molecules.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@freehenrietta
So with (a) He programs random variation. Agree?
With (b) He can't truly simulate fitness with pixels. So he has us imagine that the picture = fitness.
I understand you don't like that. So he created the second one. In the second one he simulated fitness through some type of equation. I guess we'd have to see which equation he was using. However - It's probably an algorithm that mimics observation in nature.
So to narrow down, with which part do you disagree?
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic I don't disagree with his programs. I'm just saying that it doesn't prove or disprove anything.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta You don't disagree with his programs? Can you expound on that?
He even states that he's not proving or disproving evolution and that he's not proving or disproving ID. What he is proving is that random can be made ordered if under the effect of a law.
Eg. Fractals. Crystals.
Most ID supporters say that random cannot become ordered or complex. cdk007 is simply rebutting this proposition. He proves something: Random can become ordered and complex under influence of a law
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic His program is his program..what's to agree or disagree with?
Are you saying the title has nothing to do with the contents of the video? The title says he is trying to prove that ID is "wrong".
Fractals and crystals are not examples of random to order or complexity- nothing is random about them. Even if they were, you're saying it happens because of a "law". What "law" is that and how can it be scientifically proved?
I don't know what ID supporters say. Who cares.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta
But you said "I don't disagree with his program." I'm just trying to understand what you meant by that.
My brother programs fractals. Some types of fractals are produced by producing random dots and then placing them within the parameters of some type of law or algorithm.
Regarding crystals, they are formed by the laws of electromagnetism. The electromagnetic attraction defines their shape. Planets move around the sun according to the law of gravity.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@freehenrietta
When random matter is an area of space, they come together because of the law of gravity. Some gain movement and then the combination of momentum and gravity cause them to spin into an orbit.
Again - the concept is that random things under the influence of a law can become orderly.
The same is true of natural selection. The law that guides the random events in natural selection is "survival of the fittest"
The video proves a crucial belief of ID wrong.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic Here's one of those evolutionist "assumptions" at work...you're assuming that things were out of order THEN gravity happened and brought it into order. Creationists assume that matter and gravity occurred simultaneously. Neither one can be proved or disproved but they both base TONS of information on those assumptions. The "if/then"s work for both in a lot of cases but if you can't prove the "if", the "then" is only speculation- not fact.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta I guess I made the assumption that you believed in the formation of orbits - sorry. I only made that statement because I thought you would have agreed. The theory of planetary orbit from natural forces is an argument a priori, not an argument a posteriori.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@freehenrietta You also mention the word "fact". Almost nothing can truly be proven as fact. I rarely use the word fact. When I'm discussing "proofs" I'm always referring to belief systems founded on agreed dialectic assumptions.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic Can you give me an example of something that goes from non-orbital to orbital?
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta A theoretical example (a priori) or an observed example (a posteriori)? A theoretical example would be one that flows from deduction (the superior logic). An observed example would be one that flows from induction (the inferior logic). If I go the superior route - I would deduce an instance from Newton's laws of motion. If I go the inferior route - I can't think of one that has been observed off the top of my head. I'll have to get back to you....
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@freehenrietta Don't make the mistake of thinking induction is the better proof. It isn't.
Do you believe in Newton's laws of motion? If so, then through deduction, you also believe that an orbit can come into being naturally.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic I'm asking for an example to prove a point but that response will do fine for now..
When something goes from non-orbital to orbital all it means is that it got closer to the matter with gravitational pull, lost speed, and/or lost mass. The orbit is the effect of gravity. It's not that gravity didn't exist before the orbit, it's that any combination of distance, speed, and/or mass prevented us from observing gravity at work.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that you do believe a thing can go from non-orbital to orbital?
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic Of course it can. It's been observed and explained as gravititational force. It makes sense, can be observed and explained and there's no other idea (so far) that opposes it. But I'm not sure what you think it proves relative to this conversation. Are you saying that movement of matter is random until the matter orbits something?
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta lol - I'm not understanding your point. I'm simply responding to your statements about orbits.
I brought up orbits as an example of random things under the influence of a law. When random things are affected by a law they can become ordered. - Which is essentially the thesis of the video.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic I guess you need to define "random". Matter that already exists in it's present form having it's projectory changed is not an example of random to ordered as evolution defines random to ordered. In evolution it means that something that exists in present form evolved from something totally different from its present form, period. Gravity is not part of the theory of evolution and doesn't explain anything about it.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta "Something that exists in present form evolved from something totally different from its present form."
What does that even mean? Either you're trying to define Evolution in the most complicated way possible or you have no idea what Evolution is. I'll give you the short definition of Evolution: Organisms change over time, period.
godlynessdog 9 months ago
@godlynessdog I'm not going to keep saying this (after this time): micro-evolution is not arguable- it's been observed. Macro-evolution is arguable- it's never been observed and contradicts the evidence.
freehenrietta 9 months ago
@freehenrietta 1st: When do you break off and say something is macro-evolution? What you may consider micro-evolution another person may consider macro. 2nd: When has macro-evolution EVER contradicted the evidence? I want you to look at the fossil record and see if you can tell me it contradicts macro evolution.
godlynessdog 9 months ago
@freehenrietta Conceding that *any* evolution occurs implies macroevolution occurs because no information is stored about what a change was change *from*. Without a 'trail of breadcrumbs' back into time, there is no conceivable mechanism that could stop change from merely accumulating. Change is limited only by the practicalities of what can survive and reproduce. And, if you look at nature, you will see that is pretty diverse!
Akita538 9 months ago
@Akita538 I can go with the idea that micro-evolution, over time, adds up to macro-evolution. My problem is with the way evolution explains macro-evolution. For instance, the evolutionary theory involving extinction is all wrong; therefore, anything based on the extinction conclusions is also wrong. That's a huge part of the phylogenetic tree's invalidity. If the tree is wrong, pretty much all other conclusions are, at least in part, wrong also.
freehenrietta 9 months ago
@freehenrietta Just wondering, what is what is wrong about extintion in the evolutionary theory?
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 9 months ago
@freehenrietta
"is all wrong"? why? proof by assertion is a logical fallacy. your personal opinion does not substitute the FACT that evo theory explain extinction of species.
therefore everything based on extinction is right. your personal opinion is as valuable as bug shit.
transtlantic 9 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic "Survival of the fittest" is not a law. It's a guess that would support another guess (natural selection) if the first guess were true. But neither of them can be proved and that's the problem. Then, more guesses are based on those guesses and the less right any of those guesses are, the more wrong it's subsequent guesses will be.
In evolution, everything began as "random" and became "orderly". In creationism, everything began orderly and (mostly) remains orderly.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta "Survival of the fittest" is a poor way of describing natural selection. Higher probability of the survival of the fitter would be more like it. The genes of the fitter, ie: better fitted to thrive in their environment, are more likely to be passed on than those of the less fit. Sometimes the fitter will be killed before they can breed and sometimes the less fit will be lucky and breed anyway.
Akita538 9 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic Which of those 2 can be falsified? Neither. You just have to start from the right point and make logical conclusions.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic
And with which part of my discussion do you disagree? Do you agree that "natural selection" is a mechanism - not "absolute random"?
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
I'm confused...this was supposed to prove ID wrong (look at the title). But yet, it seems to me, that all it did was prove that ID is, at the least, likely, and natural selection isn't. The first video showed how, with a designer, a goal can in fact be produced. The second video showed that, without a designer, you get a bunch of blobs. Natural selection, along with the rest of evolution, can not possibly produce anything but a bunch of "blobs".
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta No - he's showing that ID is wrong. He's giving a visual demonstration of survival of the fittest. The only thing is - he's using pixels. How do show which pixel is the most "fit"? Since pixels don't fight for any particular goal, he had to find a goal. (Animals do have a goal - survival.) So the "fit" pixels were the ones that matched the picture. People misunderstood the video and thought it demonstrated design - so he gave pixels a new goal in the second video.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic But each one had a designer and he made it do what he wanted it to do. I still don't understand how it disproves ID...still seems to support it.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta Well - he's trying to demonstrate something. To demonstrate something, you have to design it. I feel as if you are asking him to Design a demonstration without Designing it.
Let's say I ask you to Design a homemade volcano to demonstrate how a volcano works. But don't Design it! Do it without designing. The reason why you couldn't do this is not a theological or philosophical conundrum. Humans simply can't create demonstrations without designing them!
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic Are you familiar with the principles of natural selection. Try to seriously understand what he's trying to show you. He's taking principles of natural selection and illustrating them - with a computer program. I really wish he could create a program to demonstrate with Designing - but unfortunately - he's just inept in that way. cdk007 simply isn't talented enough to write programs without designing them. (so none of his demonstrations will ever please you)
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic In the very first demonstration on the first video, beforehe made the ramdom specs turn into a south park character,everything was random. He did not program a "goal".He couldn't- then it wouldn't be random and, therefore, would not have simulated selection.The first one is theonly one that even comes close to the mechanisms of selection,but yet it produced nothing more than whatit started with.It started as a random sequence of specs and ended as a random sequence of specs.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta Just to reiterate:
Natural Selection = If an animal is most fit, then it survives.
Natural Selection is not: If {random chance}, then an animal survives.
See: Darwin's Origin of Species
(I can't link on here. But check out the first 4 chapters)
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic I'm not really asking him to do anything. I'm just saying it doesn't PROVE anything- nothing for or against ID; nothing for or against evolution conclusively. But, it does seem to support ID by showing that, without a deliberate design (done by a "designer"), things won't do what you want them to...unless what you want random disorder. But, with a design/designer, deliberate and ordered results can occur.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta Are you familiar with the mechanisms behind natural selection? He does a very good job of illustrating them. Each factor he simulates is a factor that comes from Darwin's understanding of nature.
But - how is he supposed to show us that without designing a program? You say he hasn't proven anything - he's proven that using the mechanisms of selection, truly random events can lead to ordered events. But your contention is that he wrote a program. That's a silly contention.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@freehenrietta Human-made simulations of the real world require a human designer because we're human. Sorry. I wish he could escape this ridiculous impossibility. But it's silly to expect that. Simulations always require a human to make it. But those are Simulations. Weathermen have to design simulations to predict weather - that's because they are humans. Game programmers create simulations of reality. That in no way proves that reality requires a designer.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@freehenrietta What you're saying is analogous to saying: "Ghost Recon (the video game) was designed by humans" - therefore the world must have been designed.
C'mon - that's silly. Ghost Recon is a simulation designed by programmers. That's how human beings mimic undesigned things - by designing them. That's something humans by nature must do.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic That's not what I'm saying. Obviously nature and technology are not synonymous. Which leads me, again, to say "it doesn't *prove* anything" about ID or evolution. Look at what you just said, then tell me how these designed computer programs can prove anything about something that occurs naturally. And, again, IF it does anything, it MORE supports design/designer than chance- whether you're talking about nature or technology.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
Comment removed
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@MrAristotelianattic No he hasn't. He proved that *if he designes* a computer program to make random things into something recognizable, the program will work. He proved that *if he designs* a computer program to make colors drift toward like colors, they will. "Mechanisms of selection"= absolute random chance. Neither of those *programs* allowed for chance. You're trying too hard. You want his point to be valid because, if it were (which it's not) it might help "prove" something.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta Again - How else can he demonstrate this?????????????????
Simulations have to be designed. You are denying your logic - But you are most definitely making an argument analogous to: Designers made Ghost Recon. Therefore, designers made reality.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
@freehenrietta Mechanisms of selection does not equal absolute random chance. You've got that wrong.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@freehenrietta He's proven that using the mechanisms of selection, truly random events can lead to ordered events.
You're misinterpreting this sim as a Proof that evolution definitely happened. That's not what this is. It is a Rebut to the ID claim that complex order Must come from design. He's Rebutting by showing that complex order Can emerge from the interaction of random events under the laws of nature.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
You have presented an excellent argument. Did you design these computer models yourself? Has this been submitted to the academic community yet? It should be.
MrAristotelianattic 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Listen to the scientists. Mutations result in a loss of information in the genome. Read J. C. Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of Genome. Sanford has 25 genetic patents, and is the inventor of the gene gun. He thoroughly refutes the belief that evolution results from "good" mutations selection by nature. There are many reviews of Sanford's book on Amazon.
achilles197474 10 months ago
@achilles197474
I thought we already discussed Mr. Sanford's papers in the other video? His scientific publications do not refute anything about good mutations. Go re-read his papers and let me know what you find.
Hint: He is talking about extreme genetic isolation.
A0DBOB 10 months ago
Just as before i ask please for the music of this video, you choose really good ones
AndrusPr8 1 year ago
No, u haven't shown that, u just applied filters and got some colors, u didn't prove anything about evolution, natural selection, or anything else... Haha srry better luck next time :) go to my channel and website!!!
snowleopard2539 1 year ago
@snowleopard2539 You really don't grasp what it's demonstrating, do you?
blue1085 1 year ago
@snowleopard2539 i see the dunning kruger effect is occuring here.
AcanLord 11 months ago
@SumPanisVitae Divinity is defined by being esoteric knowledge. It is out of reach from observation (scientific reasoning). Yet for the divine to become provable by material means is to demean its 'divinity'. So the divine must retain its mystery/ambiguity or else it'd become self-irrelevant. but this means that divinity is far removed from human concerns. The only support for divinity would be its accounts of conviction/perception: all arbitrary and trivial to its realization and true identity.
shoulderkolibri 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae "Since the dawn of times man belives in the "invisible"." ; "Probably our view point on how god is tells more about us than him." SO TRUE, this reminds me a lot about Feuerbachs philosophy. The divine is nothing else then the projection of the humans strengths, desires and fears on a supernatural level. About "a major part of universe is completly ignored by you": well, I consider everything i can see, or know about. What I can't see usually can't affect me. Physics are true e.w.
silentfighter2 1 year ago
why is EVOLUTION wants to increase the fitness then? why change to better, whats the poit of life
SummerDay0001 1 year ago
@SummerDay0001 There is no point to life, what made you say that?
If your question is "why does evolution produce fitter, more adept life forms?" then that's OBVIOUS.
You have an animal which has two children, one child is stronger than the other, the weaker child has a higher chance of dying off leaving the stronger to reproduce.
Questioning natural selection is perhaps the STUPIDEST way of trying to "disprove" evolution (which is impossible because evolution has been observed).
ihaterobbie123 1 year ago
@ihaterobbie123 what made me say that?People have brains and they think, ppl are asking questions like ''why'', other organism don't do this, ok we evolved that way you say-.
We were using our brains to figure out that we evolved but yet some ppl think that we were created? they are not stupid becouse they think like that, ....(...)
SummerDay0001 1 year ago
@SummerDay0001 They aren't stupid? If there was no evidence for evolution, if evolution hadn't been observed, if evolution wasn't a confirmed fact with a strong theory...then your statement would be true.
There are clever people, who HAVEN'T looked into evolution at all out there. I could be the next Albert Einstein and believe in creationism because I'd been mislead.
With the internet, there is no excuse.
I believe there is no point to life, if there was it wouldn't be worth living.
ihaterobbie123 1 year ago
@ihaterobbie123 yes, it is observed that evolution exist, but it doesnt prove anything. if it is truth, it means that we evolved from nothing. there was nothing in the beginning, before ''bigbang''. You are saying that we evolved but it had to be something in the begining.
You cant disprove existence of God with evolution, so dont say that ppl have been misled, your theory is not better theory=theory.
SummerDay0001 1 year ago
@SummerDay0001 I never claimed anything of the sort, you're putting words in my mouth.
I said people have been mislead if they believe creationism is true, science and religion should have nothing to do with one another.
And you can't disprove the existence of god with anything, you cannot find evidence for something to not exist.
And the existence of god is not backed up with any evidence, if anything it's a hypothesis, NOT a theory.
ihaterobbie123 1 year ago
@ihaterobbie123 (...)they are using the same brain, there are actully smart plp out there that are creationists, who is right then? Im not trying to disprove evolution, i know organism are changing in generations, but i do not belive that our grandfather is hydrogen or bacteria.
SummerDay0001 1 year ago
@SummerDay0001 @SummerDay0001 "the point of life is to make new life" why? there is no real reason, it is just the way it works.
That is why for example natural selection only applies to the age the lifeform is able to reproduce, there is no code in our genome that codes for what to happen after we passed our fertile lifespan (except from our behaviour against our kids and so on, so thinks that do influence the success of our genomes in the new generations)
silentfighter2 1 year ago
@silentfighter2 this is your understanding of world, but we dont understand the universe. We can explain some things that are on our planet, but what about the rest of the universe? There is no prove for anything. I understand what is your way of thinking, but i belive in something bigger, try to understand me.
SummerDay0001 1 year ago
@SummerDay0001 I think I might understand what drives you to search for a divine existence, I would love to believe in it, it would be a great feeling. But sadly I cannot because I live and think following rational rules. About not understanding the universe: this may be a great occasion to learn even more, discover new things, I don't consider it a reason to believe in a divine form. But there is one thing about the divine I am sure about: ir is NOT the god of the bible, of the Qur'an or so on.
silentfighter2 1 year ago
Fyi Mr. video maker guy- there is an intelligence behind you're experiments ( therefore the data, as you claim it to be, does not match you're claims). Also! Mr. Video maker guy- explain the intelligence behind evolution.... It is "scientifically proven" that DNA can not hold information, it is only a messenger for information. Also Mr. Video maker guy keep in mind that nothing in reality exist, everything is made up of tiny forces of pure energy in a mostly (99.9999%) empty space. That is scie
iphoneguy9 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae
I am not the only one who has told you it bluntly 10 times you just refuse to listen.
sykeo123 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae
expose what? your misconceptions of evolution?
how can you show the sky is blue to a blind man.
sykeo123 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae
I did and even provided the method for which you could conduct it.
but you seemed to ignore it... and i don't feel like resending that pm
sykeo123 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae
Again it is not chance or random.
sykeo123 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae
"Well, i just try to show that Random changes + Natural selection "
The only thing random is your brain cells....
Evolution has nothing to do with random or chance.
sykeo123 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae ~I agree that the process is much more complex. Unfortunately, this venue is so limiting that an in-depth investigation or discussion is impractical...good luck on your investigations, though. My own research is elsewhere and not germaine (lateral thinking)...
pontecanis 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae ~If you are pinning your hopes on using algorithms to solve the problem, you will be unsuccessful...biology is not like mathematic algorithms as there are influences that cannot be foreseen that operate on a random basis..such as the effect of gamma ray bursts, R-ray exposure, viral incorporation, bacterial intrusion, etc. Algorithms cannot account for such things as chromosome fusion, or for simple diease processes by such things as HIV, which have no DNA. Not gonna work...
pontecanis 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae I'd recommend some good reading on evolution that might be of interest if you're into building simulations.
If you've not read them Dawkins The Selfish Gene and Eva Jablonka's Evolution in Four Dimensions provide a couple of looks at the same thing from two different angles. Or even Denis Lamoureux's Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution.
fingleur1 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae It's well known that the fixation rate of beneficial traits in the pool has to outstrip the natural degradation caused by random mutation to drive evolution.
Not all organisms have the same rate of mutations, not all replicators have the same rate of mutation. So there is also selection between DNA based replicators vs RNA or prion based replicators.
Evolution has developed normalisation processes to counter the effects of natural mutation. These need to accounted for too.
fingleur1 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae
the issue is there is ONLY ONE ROUTE FOR EVOLUTION....
thinking some horse shit like all routes need to be taken is ignorant.
sykeo123 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae Is it inconcievable that your approach may be flawed?
If you think that you are on to something, then publish!
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae There are actually people who have utilized genetic algorithms to find near optimal solutions to the traveling salesman problem. Search for: traveling salesman genetic algorithm.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae Yet reality says otherwise!
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae I really don't have enough information to figure out what is going on in the internals of your program. I do know that evolution by natural selection has been observed, and also that genetic algorithms have been used to solve engineering problems. The theory works.
If you think that you have something with your algorithm, you should write it up and submit it for publication.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae I stand corrected on the mutation rate. The sources seem to conflict on the number. This doesn't change the fact that evolution has been observed both in the field and in the lab.
Maybe it is the case that very few mutations have a marked effect on survivability, and when beneficial mutations occur, they stand out enought to make a difference for the survival of the individual.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae I looked up the mutation rate in humans, it's about 3 new mutations per person, with a lot of variance. People with one mutation would give a clear advantage to beneficial muations.
You might try lowering your mutation rate to one per individual, and run the simulation for more generations. High mutation rates are known to be detrimental in the real world, and evolution is a slow process. Also, be sure the population is large enough to be stable.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae In your algorithm, is each route mutated for each generation, or is only one route mutated at a time, or some other mutation rate? How large is your population?
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae Random changes and natural selection are enough to explain evolution. If you think you've got a computer model sophisticated enough to prove otherwise - call the people at the Nobel Foundation and ask for an application form.
fingleur1 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae What are you thinking is driving evolution? Are you saying that it is God?
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae Evolution has actually been measured in living species, and the trends correlated with changes in the environment. In experiments, changes in the environment lead to evolution by natural selection. To me, it doesn't seem reasonable to ignore these findings.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae I'm going to think intuitively about the real world. If an individual has both a beneficial and a detrimental mutation, they would somewhat cancel each other out. This isn't quite true, because which mutation comes into play in the individual's life depends on the circumstances encountered in the individual's life. Hopefully, I will never find myself in a jungle without my corrective lenses! Even though the situation is muddled in such an individual ...
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
... there would typically be other individuals with the beneficial mutation, without the detrimental mutation. Because of this, the beneficial mutation would still tend to spread through the population.
Now I'm interested in finding out what the mutation rate is in humans.
Keep in mind that my thoughts here are based on intuition, and may be incorrect.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae So by evaluating a set of routes, is your goal to end up with an individual composed of a set of good routes?
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae Is each route considered an individual in your simulations? It sounds like you are combining the function values of mutiple routes. I'm not sure of the details of your algorithm.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae Is the "Voyager" problem the same as the "Traveling Salesman" problem?
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae Also, it sounds to me that your are combining ideas from genetic algorithms, and virtual reality. Genetic algorithms generally don't simulate the circumstances of indifidual deaths. It sounds to me that you are. Is this correct?
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae If some individuals are faster, more agile or more age resistant, then wouldn't those values amount to a fitness function? The attribute values determine survival, if I'm understanding correctly.
By the way, I think I'm getting what your emphasis is, focusing on reproduction rather than death. In real life, some species actually do assure survival by having huge numbers of offspring. Is this your point?
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae Is it possible to avoid being eaten by say being faster than the foe, or is being eaten a completely random event? Does every individual die of old age at a specific age, or are some individuals deamed healthier, and live longer (provided they don't get eaten, or starve)?
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
Will whoever is flagging SumPanisVitae's comments as spam please cease! We are actually having a conversation, and it's difficult when comments are closed. Please don't abuse the spam flag option.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae I'm trying to get a handle on your algorithm. Do individuals die in your model? If so, how is it determined which individuals die?
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae The beneficial mutation would improve the fitness score, and the detrimental mutation would lower the score. This mirrors reality. I'm a bright guy, and that probably counts in my favor. I'm also extremely near sighted. I'd probably die in a jungle without my corrective lenses. If I died, no problem (well, for me there is!), the world goes on with many other bright people. The point is, beneficial mutations *tend* to propogate through the population.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae "i don't like to calculate fitness, survival is the only fitness"
In your simulations, how do you determine which individuals survive, without calculating a fitness function?
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae The ambigous wording of your previous reply gave me this idea.
OK, then back to the calculation of individual fitness by way of the sum of weighted functions. The fitness of each individual is indepenent of the other. This means the complexity of the calculations for the population is linear relative to the number of individuals. Linear complexity is considered quite scalable in computer science. There is no problem doing the calculations. Don't pretend that there is.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae You certainly see specialisation causing trouble for species. Look at the poor giant panda, it's a carnivore that's managed to survive, sort of, by finding just one plant it can eat. Or maybe specialisation of habitat - the yangtze river dolphin gone, and the other Platanistoidea on their way.
I'm not a fan of modeling. Looking at the real world reveals all sorts of surprises. If you can fit the surprises to the rule as well as the norm, then the chances are it's a very good rule.
meenymousy 1 year ago
@meenymousy I agree, modeling doesn't capture all aspects of the real world. However, the fact that modeling based on the theory of evolution has been utilized successfully to solve complex engineering problems that humans could not solve, this validates the theory of evolution. Essentially, genetic algorithms can produce "designs" without a designer. I think it's very cool.
Of course, nature does have surprises, and I am awed by nature as well.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae VARIATION <-- evolution produces this thing. As the genetic pack is shuffled at each meiosis, and each individual carries 2 (or often many more) versions of every gene, plus the natural rate of mutation on top - there will always be variation in the gene pool. If a major change in environment takes place, then the selective sweep of those individuals best adapted for the new environment will drive evolution rapidly at that point.
Variarion. Variation, Variation.
fingleur1 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae What you are saying is sheer nonsense on multiple levels. Why would you even want to create a fitness function that calculates based on the entire population, when it is actually the individual that faces natural selection. Secondly, even if you did for some twisted reason want to create such a meaningless model, the computer has absolutely no problem calculating the sum.
The simulation is not confused, you are.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
Part two - The proper way to simulate selection in a population is to calculate the fitness function on each individual of the population. The individuals survive or die based on the fitness value for that individual. This is indeed how genetic algorithms work, and they do work. SumPanisVitae, don't even think about saying that it isn't so. Computer science is my field, and I've actually implemented genetic algorithms.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
not ancestors, the other ones, descendents. Soz.
fingleur1 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae "first a mutation could be benefical at short term and fatal at large term" Exactomundo. Which is why evolution thought of this before you did and clever organisms don't just ditch old capabilities, they 'turn them off' or sideline them. Your mammalian diving reflex is an example of this. One day our ancestors might need to go back to the sea.
Obesity is slowly killing millions in the west but come the next ice-age we might need a few fatties to get us through.
fingleur1 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae There is no reason why the fitness of a being composed of many parts can not be evaluated. In the model, calculate a waeighted sum of the formulas. In nature, many factors are weighted simulaneously. The survival of a bunny hopping across the snow while a hawk flies overhead is determined by many aspects, including speed, agility, eye accuity and fur color. Nature does not have your pecular requirement of evaluating one attribute only. Don't argue with reality.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae The video that I pointed you to deals with your first argument. Can you see the population shifting back and forth between white and black? The white variation spells out death in the black environment, and vica-virca. Yet the variation allows for the shifting back and forth as needed. Moth populations have been observed shifting from dark to light to dark as the trees that they rested on shifted from dark to light (because of pollutants) and back again. Don't argue with reality.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae The models of evolution are well tested, you don't need to worry your head.
Victor has explained it to you well. Also don't forget that real-world traits are mostly polygenic and you're having to model a selection of gene combinations rather than a simple selection.
Very beneficial mutations can also benefit from 'hitchhiking', accelerating their deployment in the pool as happened with the mutation some 3-7k years ago that allowed man to tolerate lactose outside of infancy.
fingleur1 1 year ago
@SumPanisVitae An individual can have both beneficial and detrimental mutations. In the typical case, the beneficial mutation exists in multiple individuals, tending to spread through the population over generations, even if the individual that you've pointed out dies before reproducing. Occassionally, a beneficial mutation may perish. Even this is not a problem, since a population typically contains many beneficial mutations, and the population tends to become well adapted to the environment.
VictorLaszloLives 1 year ago