Evolution for ID-iots
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Latest product of basic evolution program.
A creatures probability of survival is dependent its compatibility to the environment relative to its fellows.
Anyone who survives can breed.
This shows that evolution is an intrinsic property of any system where offspring are different from their parent, and suffer environmental attrition. Life is such a system.
Music Track, theme from Black Beauty
I lol'd when thunderf00t's face showed up in the end.
Yes, that's me.
that was fantastic. I wish this video had 7 billion views ...
"you couldnt write a 'creation-emulator' without putting in every pieces of information you want in the outcome. "
Thunder, this is exactly what you have done with the evolution emulator.
You designed the outcome AND you designed the means to that end.
Evolution is so awesome, it makes our lives so much more interesting than a magic man suddenly snapping his fingers.
We've made it a long way!
While you're at it, why don't you define what an ape is too? I could just tell you that an "ape" is "any member of the taxonomic superfamily, Hominoidea", but that would mean that humans are apes. So why don't you try to come up with another definition, and be prepared to defend it.
I normally love your videos but have two questions.
1- The last few seconds can me understood to imply that man descended from from modern apes, rather than us sharing a common ancestor. This is one of the most insidious misunderstandings about evolution and I was disappointed to see it here.
2- I haven't been able to work out the survivability criteria for your creatures. It clearly isn't just color like in cdk007's simulations. What role do the facial features play? Please explain. Thanks
This got to be the most hilarous video I ever seen. Good job thunderfoot, you conviced me that in 1 million years, my cat's future generations will turn into dogs and the dogs will become parrots and human will become chickens. The roach will be the new human and will have power over all.
The music made me feel like I could fly!
hrhr! love the pic of Thunderf00t!
lmao!
GREAT!
One of the pitfalls of me understanding evolution was that I kept thinking about it as changes over time.
That might be right, but it makes more sence to me to think changes over generations.
@ProphetLuong "1.New 14C is formed from background radiation, such as radioactivity in the surrounding rocks. In some cases, 14C from the atmosphere can contaminate a sample. A few processes that can add "modern" 14C to coal are:
•Sulfur bacteria, which commonly grow in coal.
•Secondary carbonates from groundwater that form on fracture surfaces.
•Whewellite, a carbon-containing mineral, that often forms as coal weathers. "
That's my reasoning exactly.
I'm not 100% sure (since you really can't disprove it), but the probability that there is a god is so low for me that I just ignore it, just as I ignore the possibility of unicorns, fairies, and invisible flying teapots.
@AcanLord I remember standing up and telling my mom that my stomach stopped hurting. They looked at me with their mouths wide open. I stood up and walked away just like that. When I was sick, I have been laying in my bed for around 2 weeks and didn't get up to play or anything except to to go the bathroom. My parents were about to bring me to the hospitol. I will never forget that moment. And don't tell me that was a coincidence; the pain stopped right after they stopped praying for me.
Sir, ALL of us are BORN ATHEISTS.
I had to learn about gods.
Also, wouldn't you believe most everything your parents told you at that age? My parents also said Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy existed and I believed that also...why would I NOT believe in a god which my parents insisted was real?
Sir, you don't make any sense. OBVIOUSLY I truly believed in the biblical god and then contradictory evidence resulted in accepting reality. Gods appear to be like Santa for adults.
Well in my case it was exactly the other way around. I was raised as a Catholic, and at the age of 14 or 15, FINALLY my parents said that I didn't have to go to church if I didn't want to. (Or, to put it really blunt: they finally stopped forcing THEIR religion on me). At the same time I became more interested into dinosaurs, evolution, the universe, etc. (or basically, just: science)Now, I rather believe in the things we CAN see, touch, smell, do etc.
With reference to your latest question 1957hutch, just to clarify - the statement that belief in natural laws "requires faith in either the personal or impersonal" is questionable because it is not useful to make assumptions on aspects of reality which one cannot validate. So we don't. Arguably the religious mindset does the opposite in that it freely speculates about such matters, but similarly it lacks the means to support its arguments.
Excellent simplification of a matter most people don't grasp. I wonder if pointing the example with canines or felines as well would make an even more pronounced impact (i.e. here's another natural example, in case you disagree).
great video. only problem i have with it is at the end you show chimps evolving to humans (i know it's a demo) but it encourages the ID-iots (nice term) to think that evolution claims we evolved from chimps rather than a common anscestor.
They added up the ages of biblical characters who "begat" each other, now that's magic!
@Casanuda No, this doesn't really show anything.. I'm asking how does one evolve from 3-4 different genus' and say okay we have us.
8) Atomic Theory, Theory of Matter and Energy, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Light Energy, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Molecular Bonds, Theory of Homeostasis, Theory of Gravity, etc..
Which of these other theories (which also describe FACTS) have you investigated and disproven? Maybe radioactivity? Perhaps electromagnetism? How about gravity?
A far greater presupposition would be that genes code for proteins that ultimately determine the structure of organisms actually occurred without design and initiation. To have a pile of parts does not explain the assembly of a complex machine. Macroevolution also presupposes that small changes over time brought major changes (order naturally overriding chaos) countless times. This is not science.
Thank you for your input also. I would query the misleading use of the term 'spontaneous' - may I suggest 'gradual' as an alternative?
"Since there is no science that explains their appearence or origins you excercise faith"
It is the business of the objectively critical NOT to have faith - the whole idea is to consult evidence where it is available so as to know truth to the fullest extent that truth can be known.
@ProphetLuong is it though? i have seen all the evidence for evolution, and i see nothing which contradicts it. do you have a "reasonable counter-argument" preventing evolution from being a fact in your eyes?
That is very easy to understand.Well done!
Yes i must be a troll because i disagree with you..is that your argument?
Retroviruses, You mean ERV? If say chimps and humans share some ERV's what percentage of differences between human and chimp ERV's would falsify evolution and based on what do you claim that?
O by the way when it comes to ERV's evolutionists did not predict the similarities, they made the prediction after the discovery.
I'll hear about it soon enough if it has any substance. Evolutionists have been waiting 150 years to find one - there should be thousands.
The theory of evolution is not intended to explain the origin of life. That's abiogenesis (theory for origin of life). The theory of evolution is about how organisms change over time. The theory of how life actually started is iffy and there are many possible scenarios). However, the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly supported, and there hasn't been one tinge of evidence to the contrary. If there has, then that scientist would win the Nobel Prize, and the theory would be abolished.
@ProphetLuong "The Nazi joke was to remind folks that Nazis were the biggest supporter of Darwin "
but darwin's book was banned in Nazi germany.
What is the line between a human ancestor and a human? Bigger brain? How much? 1 gram? What's 1/2 a gram then? Whatever distinction you draw, it'll be very hard to define the crossover point. However, you can certainly point to large enough fossil differences to show distinct species in the human evolutionary path. I can't describe it any better than with the languages- you know of french and latin, but where do you pinpoint where the descendant of the latter became more like the former?
Funnily enough the scientist Linnaeus was creationist in many ways and helped create the modern animal classification system, so the burden is not completely off your shoulders. :P
That ending was fucking amazing!
This is called "antics with semantics" and is part of the evolution of the meaning of evolution.
When ID'ers started pointing out that certain traits could be caused by adaptation, (See Darwin's Finches) evos had to say No that's not adaptation so you are wrong.
But when a creature adapts to it's new surrounding or a new food source, it's adaption. Call it whatever you like. It hasn't evolved. It's still the same creature. only it's now blind.
5) Excerpt: Evolution is a theory AND a fact. Facts are the world's data. Theories are ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Stephen Jay Gould, Evolutionary Biologist
"What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns', in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes?"
The same genes control the development of the same organs in many different species, and is in fact very clear evidence that supports common ancestry. I'm not even clear exactly what you're inanely spouting off about anymore as it becomes increasingly hard to decipher. You don't possess even a cursory understanding of the subject.
That was a really neat progam, where could I get my hands on one?
John, there is no scientific book that says a dog can interbreed with cats, NONE AT ALL! If you find one I'll give you $1000, I PROMISE!
So what is the limit for genetic variation? How do you know when genetic variation has hit a wall?
"As of now we only know that evolution happened for animals "
humans are animals!
Does the bible discribe evolution?
Do you understand that we do not believe that your God, Devil, Heaven or Hell even exist? Is it not a matter of "rejecting god's love" We don't believe that there is any "god's love".
We look at the things that you believe in exactly the same way that you look at the gods of ancient Greece, Rome or Egypt. (that is assuming that you don't believe they were demons or something like that.)
I thought Thunderf00t was clear when he stated about evolution:"YES IT ACCOUNTS FOR THE ORIGINS OF DIVERSITY, NOT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE." It seems to me he was clear. This is the premise that Darwin sets in chapter six of his book. What I don't agree with, is the position found in certain university text books that I have quoted on youtube stating evolution explains the origins of life. I disagree.
explosion, most animals were multicellular, with a reletivly similar number of cells as we have today. After that, as they developed more and more, they required more cells, but not nearly that much because they already had their jobs that they needed to do working well. So no, unless you need new organs under selective pressure, cell count will not increase considerably. It is more like what jobs the cells are doing that evolution cares about, not their quanity.
i think you are confusing recognition with worshiping, those are not even synonymous.
And to expand, because it's important, the fact that humans and chimps have a lot of DNA in common is really not conclusive. You might argue that a creator was reusing the same "building blocks". Fairy muff.
But viral DNA isn't part of our design. It's genetic pollution accumulated over time and passed down through the generations. There is simply no conceivable way that chimps could have the exact same insertion sites as humans without both species getting it from a common ancestor.
'What exactly do you not know about our current paradigm?'
"This sentence is nonsense."
OK, you don't like the question. Let's try another one. What kinds of things do you know about previous paradigms that you do not know about the one we are currently in? Is that better?
This video is somewhat of an oversimplification. Speciation due to species becoming separated over different environments is only a small fraction of what drives evolution.
I wouldn't go so far as saying that fossils are the least important evidence, but I would say that they give us only a small portion of the abundent evidence that supports evolution. You can easily observe evolution in living reproducing organisms. Fossils offer a snapshot of rates-of-change. Older models of life that no longer exist, who are either terminated or thier descendants are morphologically evolved.
@underoath777123 through mutations, i.e. the DNA was copied incorrectly, such as Adenine being copied as Guanine, thus changing the gene.
"For even bears dont believe in evolution. Bears know better than to drop their fur," Like a bear controls his fur ? or has any beliefs at all? A bear wakes up and just wants to eat. I don't think he has a library in his den so he can ponder the merits of evolution vs ID.
"and u havent even given one yet that doesnt involve common decent."
It's spelled "descent," and I have. I basically said this: A human with 48 chromosomes is not a chimp. That would be a human. So maybe humans has 48 chromosomes at one time, but they didn't share a common ancestor with chimps. That's the story. It's pretty simple.
@bvsandman
Sooo... because in ONE video he didn't explain where life came from that disproves evolution? Sorry you are looking for abiogenesis now, which is an interesting subject but completely different. Though I do suggest you start with the Wikipedia article.
Hello Thunderf00t hope all is well.Wow this discussion is very far along. Don't mean to intrude. Would like to ask 2 questions. No wish to be combative. You can be the teacher I will sit in the chair. 1. You mentioned Aids, do you view retrovial DNA (virus)as not yet evolved? 2.(sincerely) can a theist PHD biologist be credible or is that just a difficulty when the subject of origins arises? Has our defence been so poorly presented that you find the whole thought of a personal God unacceptable
It's your job to educate yourself on evolution, because the ones who can teach you, paid thousands of dollars and\or many hours researching the topic. You can't expect people who earned that knowledge to spoon feed it to you all the time. I was skeptical of evolution at first, so I researched it and found it was one of the most consistent and well proved theories in science. I also did the same for intelligent design and found a lot of lies, deception and very poorly thought up ideas.
Unique to an extent, obviously.
I know everything isn't about God, plus don't you mean from Hebrew to Greek? because the Bible was written in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, I think some Syriac.
"there really is no more evidence for evolution than the earth revolving around the sun."
Actually far less. And of a very different type.
"Evolution has nothing to do with 'Theories of origins'."
Evolution IS a theory of origins, and the naturalistic type currently dominates every aspect of every scientific paradigm. You just think there's no alternative, and for this reason, you habitually contradict everything I say. Maybe you were in a rush, though. This could be a mistake on your part.
Thank you the last one cunfunkeld me
@R0gyo
You said : -- So around one third of the population of the world beleiving in God is no evidence at all? --
Yes.
Its called having faith. Faith means to believe something without evidence,
and sometimes despite evidence to the contrary.
Also, you havent given me an explaination why those C-14 dates are incorrect.
I know the answer, Do you?
It is more of the same information, not new information and definitely has a negative impact. The horses comment was in response to someone else's comment in regards to limits on genetic mutations.
"If u r going to pursue your perverse logic, would u call gravity a theory of origins?"
My logic isn't perverse, and I have good reason for not calling gravity a theory of origins. Gravity is available for empirical observation, and we can study its properties at this present time. Theories of origins deal with events in our history which we can no longer directly observe. These events are credited with forming the world of the past into the world as we see it today.
Do you really want me to do the same for seals and dogs?
"It doesnt explain how the universe got here, or the planet, or how life started. It merely explains given the properties of life, evolution is an expected and intrinsic property."
It explains the origins of species. And you've been focusing rather hard on the origins of our own species lately.
"Ive also said the earth is round more than once in 24 hrs"
Totally irrelevant, I don't even know why you're going there.
Practically it's more information. You have to bits of information per nucleobase pair.
Yes, in fact it is!
I doubt I can offer you compelling proof of a Creator because we all look at evidence differently based on our view of the world. I look at life/earth/universe and see how easily it could have came about according to the creation account in Genesis. Is my presupposition out of line when the best explanation of abiogenesis/evolutionary alternatives depend on unobserved theory and contradicting ideas?
Horses running the Kentucky derby. Look into the historic time records and you will see that horses have a genetic speed limit. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent trying to increase speed generation after generation, yet they haven't increased since 1960. Increase muscle to improve speed and you get more weight. More weights slows the horse. Trying to lower weight results in other system failures like weaker, less dense bones.
WOW awesome vid, kudos to whoever made this short but enlightening presentation
too bad ID-iots close their eyes to reason..
why does it really matter what we evolved from. isn't it mostly important that we did evolve, and not how?
Why is it 'common sense' to believe in something for which there is no evidence?
Excelente video :)
So to even BEGIN to shake the evidence presented by the other approaches such as the study of genetics (and the genetic evidence is overwhelming on its own), then the fossil record has to show with at least some certainty (not the accidental fluke or the odd hoax) phenomenae that evolution couldn't account for.
Otherwise it still only adds to the certainty we have from e.g. repeated patterns of ERV insertion sites.
So what in the fossil record DISproves evolution rather than fails to prove it?
"98% or so of our dna we share with our nearest ancestor"
Eh, that's false. The highest acceptable number is 95%. Evolutionists like to ignore chromosomes 4, 9, and 12, and number 21 is particularly troubling. But it's up to you if you want to look into those.
Love the hair Tf00t.
@breedofthe45 I don't know what you're talking about because this stuff actually shows everything pretty well.
While it doesn't give.. actual evidence really it shows how and why it would happen.
Things slowly evolve over generations because their species is slowly learning and changeing how to survive easier in its environment. Look at stuff like.. a mud skipper or a giraffe. They're bodies evolved over hundreds of thousands of generations to fit their needs in the environment.
Yea, the ability to breath, see, hear, feel, think, love, and even contemplate on the very QUESTION of the origin of life, having this conversation on youtube, yeah, those aren't convincing evidences of ID.
Explosion > rock > rain > worm > frog > monkey > human is a better explanation?
awesome video.
@pythor2
well scientists were the ones to believe this before, then as evolution "evolved" it became more refined.
so this argument is no longer valid for either side.
now our problem is... how exactly did we change? with very limited fossil evidence, we can only assume.
@Patrickthedutch
am i the only one that finds it REALLY ironic this guy notes evolution as 'fantasy'
(ill be nice and spell check for you)
... call me crazy but i think this 'fantasy' is a little less fantasy than a wizard in the sky making everything
@Casanuda No, the fact that they don't own up to their mistakes, they act like it's no big deal, especially when the old ideas they throw out, quite a few people will hold onto that, and if that information is wrong they will pass it off to family or other people and then it's a never ending cycle of people being stupid and believing old information instead of the new.
You haven't provided any knowledge of Christianity at all.
On a number of occasions you've confused irrelevant beliefs of other religions with that of Christianity, and then feigned disinterest when told it wasn't the same.
You are quite obsessed with my God, because you know it's the only God that matters. I don't have to guess that this is so, I know it.
It wasn't my theory. You should read the entire thread.
"evolNUTion"
If you constantly mis-spell the word its hardly surprising you misunderstand it.
I love the Dr Mason reveal at the end. Well done sir
Love the ending. The fact that macroevolution, by definition, takes a long time to observe is the creationist's best friend. However, it's (somewhat) akin to watching a digital watch display for a short period of time and concluding that because no change in the hour has been observed, the hour must have always been fixed.
Whenever I need to explain evolution to someone. I always reference this video. You could not have made it easier.
Well, I guess it shows the basics, but show them some other evolution simulators here on the tube, or even programs you can download. As here Thunderf00t says "A creatures probability of survival is dependent its compatibility to the environment relative to its fellows." in the description. But doesn't explain the fitness function. So it's probably just relying on the combination of mutations, and the most extreme mutations accumulating, or the same mutations in different individuals that goes in the same direction in one variable. It's not too interesting.
I'd say it's a poor simulation of evolution. You need some kind of fitness function.
Haha, I love your cameo at the end.
Also, what program is this? I'd really love to play with it.
Have you seen a living bird and compared it to a chicken? Birds are a subset of dinosaurs just as chickens are a subset of birds. To prove that, I would challenge you to define what a dinosaur is. Because you obviously don't know.
You don't need to know how life began to know the completely different explanation of how it diversifies. Evolution is "decent with [genetic] modification". That means you have to have something to "descend" from.
Is a komodo dragon a chicken? No. Komodo dragons are lepidosaurs, the wrong side of the diapsid family tree. Chickens and all other dinosaurs are archosaurs -as are pterosaurs, phytosaurs and crocodilians.
Chickens are still birds, and birds are still dinosaurs. Bacteria will always be bacteria and humans will always be apes. You have to have some idea what evolution is before you can critique it.
ROFLMAO!! Again, thanks for the laughs! You completely IGNORED the content of the comment!!
Sir, children lose their belief in gods just like Santa and the Tooth Fairy.
The reason is that children are more inclined to believe in silly supernatural entities. As they get older then they start to realize that certain things don't appear to exist.
Children readily accept Santa and the Tooth Fairy...not adults. Religiosity and intellect/education are also inversely correlated.
Great video and great comments from the people who take it serious!
Simple. Informative. Straight to the point. Great Work.
Love the title. Can any IDers out there explain what kind of intelligent creator put a waste management center next to the recreation centre?
Ha ha ha, I loved the ending :D Yup am liking your videos.
How did you make that simulation?
So good. Music, animation, text... I loved the "great, great, great, great, great, great,..." you kept up with at times.
I didn't say PROOF, I said EVIDENCE. We can deduce from the evidence that we have that evolution is a damn good bet, even if it isn't 100% proved.
The same cannot be said about religion. There is exactly ZERO evidence for the existence of god that would stand up under any kind of objective scrutiny.
haha, on top of all of that, we have brilliant statement at the end. to paraphrase "i think your idea is wrong, therefore id wins, pwnd!"
come on katja, just say 'we should teach the controversy' and you ll have ticked all the creationist boxes.
you know you want to!