Doodling in Math: Spirals, Fibonacci, and Being a Plant [Part 3 of 3]

Notes and References: http://youtu.be/POKWkuwoihM
Part 1: http://youtu.be/ahXIMUkSXX0
Part 2: http://youtu.be/lOIP_Z_-0Hs
How to find the Lucas Angle: http://youtu.be/RRNQAaTVa_A

• Category

  Education

[Pedro Johnston]

did you just hear what the video said? it was inevitable that things arranged themselves into fibonacci patterns. There was no other way more efficient. It's exactly the same as why would a river run up a mountain if it can run down it. More efficient.

[Inception1338]

all that the flowerbits are doing is growing where's the most room for them.

The rest happens autoMATHicly.

[thunderbird252]

I wish I knew what she looked like...

[Scarr420]

Pantheist god or Religion god?

[Crucial288]

Evolution is actually a fact. Using a nifty method known to some as "the scientific", we KNOW things evolved, not only simply believe it.

[MrG0TH1ER]

So where does the genetic information to grow a tail in human DNA came from?

Why can hair turn into the thick scales of a pangolin but not into feathers or vice versa?

Why would a fish grow feathers? A very far away descendant of a fish that doesn’t look at all like a fish might. You are looking for spontaneous evolution, which is nonsense. You really need to learn about evolution because you show your ignorance with every comment. Like it or not, evolution is a fact.

[UnbiasedAlienCritic]

*evolution.

[UnbiasedAlienCritic]

"So you think DNA won't allow something like a blue whale for example?"

That wasn't even a complete or coherent thought. Try again.

-

The limit of DNA is just what you said, basically: No fish will get feathers, or a frog get scales. They don't and never will have the DNA to get those things. They can only change what is there, and only minutely. That's the way it's been since the dawn of time.

Dawkins' work is always fiction as it's based off of a fairy-tale: evollution.

[MrG0TH1ER]

So you think DNA won't allow something like a blue whale for example?

You still claim there is a "limit" in DNA but you failed to show where and what that limit is.

I agree, there is a limit and the limit is that you can't naturally give birth to an animal significantly different than its parents.

Even if 99% of mutations were harmful it is irrelevant as long as some are not.

Have you read the Dawkins book before you called it work of fiction Mr. “Open-minded”?

[MrG0TH1ER]

"They have a child, That child will be best suited for the warm environment." Not at all.

If being suited to the environement is not an important factor to survival there will be no genetic adaptation for warm environment. The child will just be used to warm.

[UnbiasedAlienCritic]

[con't]

An open-minded atheist. HA! Yeah right.

[UnbiasedAlienCritic]

[con't]

Let's say that two adults who live in a cold environment then move to a warmer environment. They then have a child. That child will more likely than not be suited to the colder environment. However, after, let's say, a year of living in the warm environment, they will adapt to the warm environment. They have a child, That child will be best suited for the warm environment.

If you're open-minded about the validity of evolution, you might want to take a look at 'Darwin's Black Box'.