Haven is awesome. I’ve read a couple of his books and watched his course from The Teaching Company. Changed my view on the mineral evolution. Thank you Mr Hazen
25:00- Bad things lead to good results: oxygen is bad for everything except as the central component of the heme in warm blooded species, but it's its 'bad' high reactivity that triggered the formation of the 2/3 of minerals seen today that led to the creation of life on earth which would've been impossible otherwise. Extremely underrated vid series. Hazen's mineral lectures amazed me , and actually should've on many more other earthens who are interested in how it came into a being as it is rather than just live on it.
I went to the DTDI site and as a geologist that has work for more than 40 years in both academia and the minerals industry I find the presentation of the networks is absolutely amazing work....I was in particular interested in the "Ore Deposits" network .. please allow me to give you some feedback.. I think it will make the network easier to "read" and if you could add the names / titles of the nodes on the actual nodes in the active network.. in the "ore deposits" network you have a large number of grey nodes connected to the colored nodes and when pulling on a color node you can only identify the name / title of the grey node by releasing and then clicking on the specific grey node .. and then you obviously lost the association that you activated by clicking on the colored node.. in short will it be possible to post the title / name of the node on the node ...? I tried to find an email address on the website to address this issue but no email addresses are posted.. But its still amazing work!
As far as chance 10 to the 60th power isn't a lot. If every atom in the visible universe, vibrating a quadrillionth of a second were monkeys typing on keyboards for 13 billion years they could not get past a sentence (say 65 characters) of Shakespeare. Randomness is not a cause for complex sequential information. A human being has 60 zetabytes (20 zero) of digital information working holistically, in concert to maintain life as we know it.
The trick is in the replication. have a molecule that can make copies of itself, and have one of the copies have a structural change occur randomly. Does the changed version of the molecule have a useful effect of any type (better catalytic function, tighter/looser bonding/interaction with other molecules) then that random change has a useful effect. just repeat this 10^50 times
the trick is that the chemistry keeps the bit that work. So to use your tired analogy, what if when a monkey had typed a bit of shakespeare "To Be" that was retained and retyped ever time it started over. What if every time the monkeys started over the ones neighboring the chimps who had typed 'To Be' also typed that. Then one other chimp types after "To Be" the bit "or Not". Again, repeating this on each time it starts again. You would get the collected works of shakespeare pretty quickly. HOWEVER, if one of the monkeys started with "It Was" and eventually after multiple iterations produced the works of Bulwar Lytton. You give a target of a specific work of literature, ripped from it's context. it's a really bad analogy. You should feel ashamed to still be using it.
@@JeffreyCornish Point being randomness is not a cause for mathematical complexity. Your system requires a much more complex intelligent editing system.
@@seamus9305 "randomness is not a cause for mathematical complexity" Seamus's theorem, brought to you by the If We Came From Monkey's Why Are There Still Monkeys Foundation. There is ZERO evidence for intelligence in either creationism or biological systems. Big Numbers obtained by ignoring selection are just Big Numbers of No Significance.
@@mcmanustony Point being, there is a cause for complexity, intelligence. As far as the big numbers, you have to compare what sequence can form a functioning protein with the random amount of non-functional functional, sequential code just like you would have to compare what the typing monkeys come up with functional sentencing. Forget about a book of Shakespeare's , but any literature. The math is not there as far as randomness as a cause is concerned.
Haven is awesome. I’ve read a couple of his books and watched his course from The Teaching Company. Changed my view on the mineral evolution. Thank you Mr Hazen
25:00- Bad things lead to good results: oxygen is bad for everything except as the central component of the heme in warm blooded species, but it's its 'bad' high reactivity that triggered the formation of the 2/3 of minerals seen today that led to the creation of life on earth which would've been impossible otherwise.
Extremely underrated vid series. Hazen's mineral lectures amazed me , and actually should've on many more other earthens who are interested in how it came into a being as it is rather than just live on it.
I find this fascinating. I am surprised there are not more views. Maybe there are other duplicate/similar ones?
I went to the DTDI site and as a geologist that has work for more than 40 years in both academia and the minerals industry I find the presentation of the networks is absolutely amazing work....I was in particular interested in the "Ore Deposits" network .. please allow me to give you some feedback.. I think it will make the network easier to "read" and if you could add the names / titles of the nodes on the actual nodes in the active network.. in the "ore deposits" network you have a large number of grey nodes connected to the colored nodes and when pulling on a color node you can only identify the name / title of the grey node by releasing and then clicking on the specific grey node .. and then you obviously lost the association that you activated by clicking on the colored node.. in short will it be possible to post the title / name of the node on the node ...? I tried to find an email address on the website to address this issue but no email addresses are posted.. But its still amazing work!
Mineral evolution begins 12:00
amazing...!!
As far as chance 10 to the 60th power isn't a lot. If every atom in the visible universe, vibrating a quadrillionth of a second were monkeys typing on keyboards for 13 billion years they could not get past a sentence (say 65 characters) of Shakespeare.
Randomness is not a cause for complex sequential information. A human being has 60 zetabytes (20 zero) of digital information working holistically, in concert to maintain life as we know it.
The trick is in the replication. have a molecule that can make copies of itself, and have one of the copies have a structural change occur randomly. Does the changed version of the molecule have a useful effect of any type (better catalytic function, tighter/looser bonding/interaction with other molecules) then that random change has a useful effect. just repeat this 10^50 times
the trick is that the chemistry keeps the bit that work. So to use your tired analogy, what if when a monkey had typed a bit of shakespeare "To Be" that was retained and retyped ever time it started over. What if every time the monkeys started over the ones neighboring the chimps who had typed 'To Be' also typed that. Then one other chimp types after "To Be" the bit "or Not". Again, repeating this on each time it starts again. You would get the collected works of shakespeare pretty quickly.
HOWEVER, if one of the monkeys started with "It Was" and eventually after multiple iterations produced the works of Bulwar Lytton.
You give a target of a specific work of literature, ripped from it's context. it's a really bad analogy. You should feel ashamed to still be using it.
@@JeffreyCornish Point being randomness is not a cause for mathematical complexity. Your system requires a much more complex intelligent editing system.
@@seamus9305 "randomness is not a cause for mathematical complexity" Seamus's theorem, brought to you by the If We Came From Monkey's Why Are There Still Monkeys Foundation.
There is ZERO evidence for intelligence in either creationism or biological systems.
Big Numbers obtained by ignoring selection are just Big Numbers of No Significance.
@@mcmanustony Point being, there is a cause for complexity, intelligence. As far as the big numbers, you have to compare what sequence can form a functioning protein with the random amount of non-functional functional, sequential code just like you would have to compare what the typing monkeys come up with functional sentencing. Forget about a book of Shakespeare's , but any literature. The math is not there as far as randomness as a cause is concerned.