Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hello! I've been working on other things for a few months. Some of you may remember me from my notorious thread asking Christians whether or not they believe in evolution. I am not here to deconvert you. There is no possible way for me to convince you of anything because you will simply dismiss it with some biblical verse. I am simply here to disprove the intelligent design argument of it being unlikely that life exists in its current state by chance. Allow me to disprove this.
I made a video showing the difference between random chance and natural selection. In the first part, it executes a Python script (here it is for the people who are curious) which generates random strings (collections of letters) until it reaches the string "Fifty". Obviously I sped it up, and obviously, it fails because of the 380204032 variations of 5 character strings.
However, when you attempt the same thing, but it automatically selects strings which are closer to "Fifty", which is much more similar to natural selection (though if you want to see a more realistic version of computerised evolution simulations, see Evolution by Keiwan), you get a much shorter attempt number (see the script here, I used Zivia's [an excellent programming YouTube channel if you are into that] script to save time).
NOTES:
- Music during the video is Ashterra - Worlds Inside The Worlds, but I pulled it from the Space Engine soundtrack, which you should check out
- Sorry about the watermark, but I have had hours and hours of work stolen by people claiming it as their own before and I'm not going to let it happen again.
- Please don't just dismiss this and continue to make the argument. Reject this on its merit, not on whether or not it clashes with your beliefs.
- I used this as the background for the video.
- I made the background of the Command Prompt window transparent in the post-production, the rainbow of the text was also added in post.
- I also want to address the comment of "Well evolution is supposed to be over millions of years, this is over a few seconds." - Yes, evolution does occur over millions of years. But this is simply showing an acceleration of the process.
No... no... and no...I get it, I was looking at the last lines of the output thus my false conclusions.
What your scripture accomplished is proving you can manipulate the result with a bias. You could use the same script to favour intelligent design.
this is not a programming knowledge problem. There is a constant string "Fifty" in here and everything is being checked against it by a point system on how close it is to the predetermined amount. it "evolves" based on learning how close it is to the desired product. What tells the script to work towards "Fifty"? why not "Sixty" or "Broomstick"? why not "DOgjBhgmd3"? This is the manipulation of the string. You don't manually do it but it is preset to figure out the outcome. The script at best points to a form of determinism.No... no... and no...
You clearly didn't read the script and/or don't know how to program.
As I firmly believe, you can't make evolution work nowadays without computers.this is not a programming knowledge problem. There is a constant string "Fifty" in here and everything is being checked against it by a point system on how close it is to the predetermined amount. it "evolves" based on learning how close it is to the desired product. What tells the script to work towards "Fifty"? why not "Sixty" or "Broomstick"? why not "DOgjBhgmd3"? This is the manipulation of the string. You don't manually do it but it is preset to figure out the outcome. The script at best points to a form of determinism.
Thinking you can equate them has not scientific value unless you can demonstrate it is so. Thus far you have not done so.Fair point, however, I do think I can equate them fairly well.
Whether or not the Keiwan item does what you claim is irrelevant. The principal thesis of your thread is that your video proves evolution. It doesn't. If you wish to rely upon Keiwan to justify your argument then that should be central to your posts.I also repeatedly mentioned Evolution by Keiwan throughout the post which shows evolution without a defined goal, it also is (cough) pretty fun (/cough).
I'm not convinced that would be sufficient, but for sake of furthering the discussion I'll concede the possibility for the moment. However, that most certainly would not prove evolution. All it would demonstrate is that a possible mechanism that would permit microevolution is not statistically excluded.To prove my point once and for all, I guess I will have to demonstrate that my genetic algorithm is an equivalent for a real genetic trait. So what if we change the string "Fifty" to a genetic trait that is necessary for a species to evolve to survive a new environment (assuming that that trait is the only possible long-term survival method and that the species isn't currently surviving very well [ie. many are dying but not all]). If we equate it with a necessary trait, then the python routine is appropriate as an experiment proving evolution.
I will hone in on this, your point seems to rest on this. It doesn't. The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that randomness and evolution are not the same. A common creationist argument is "How could a single cell randomly become a horse at the snap of a finger?". The point of this is to refute that argument.The principal thesis of your thread is that your video proves evolution.
No. Not at all...this is not a programming knowledge problem. There is a constant string "Fifty" in here and everything is being checked against it by a point system on how close it is to the predetermined amount. it "evolves" based on learning how close it is to the desired product. What tells the script to work towards "Fifty"? why not "Sixty" or "Broomstick"? why not "DOgjBhgmd3"? This is the manipulation of the string. You don't manually do it but it is preset to figure out the outcome. The script at best points to a form of determinism.
No. Not at all...
It simulates natural selection the healthier (closer to "Fifty"), the more likely to reproduce.
I played the video again at 0.25 speed.I liked the current music and graphics but I think it desperately needs an introduction and a conclusion.
I played the video again at 0.25 speed.
It makes no sense [to me] at any speed.
Will you admit that the viewer has to be coached to understand it?The video is showing that the common creationist claim that evolution is random and therefore can't happen is false.
When the changes are indeed random, the word "fifty" can't be produced.
When changes that bring the word closer to "fifty" are favoured, even a little bit, it makes it much easier to get to "fifty."
Likewise, if evolution was truly random, it wouldn't work. But if mutations that convey even a slight benefit are favoured, then natural selection will make sure that evolution takes place.
I don't know what point it's making; but if the point is that microevolution works, I'll agree with it.Does that mean that the point it makes is incorrect?
When changes that bring the word closer to "fifty" are favoured, even a little bit, it makes it much easier to get to "fifty."
OP, these statements above are exactly what you need to add to the video so people know what's going on. It's failure to be convincing here is because it's not explained well enough. Think like a movie director and walk your audience where you want them to go.The video is showing that the common creationist claim that evolution is random and therefore can't happen is false.
When the changes are indeed random, the word "fifty" can't be produced.
When changes that bring the word closer to "fifty" are favoured, even a little bit, it makes it much easier to get to "fifty."
Likewise, if evolution was truly random, it wouldn't work. But if mutations that convey even a slight benefit are favoured, then natural selection will make sure that evolution takes place.
Ya ... even the coaching was bad.Think like a movie director and walk your audience where you want them to go.
Thanks for the advice buddy! I'll fix up the OP when I can.OP, these statements above are exactly what you need to add to the video so people know what's going on. It's failure to be convincing here is because it's not explained well enough. Think like a movie director and walk your audience where you want them to go.
I don't know what point it's making; but if the point is that microevolution works, I'll agree with it.
Else I would look just like my dad.
but it cant happen in nature.
for instance any protein has a minimal limit.
if you will even remove\change a single amino acid out of that limit it will stop working. a simple example is the flagellin protein. out of 497 aa 310 are crucial to its function.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?