HOME | DD
nemo-ramjet β Typographic Evolution
Published: 2006-03-25 16:28:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 13556; Favourites: 191; Downloads: 462
Redirect to original
Description
A typographic demonstration of the evolutionary idea. The shape of each letter in the word "evolution" was blindly copied dozens of times, and their changes were observed and recorded. In a few generations, minor differences in strokes turned into exaggerated features of their own.Related content
Comments: 119
Quite likely the most awesome thing I've ever seen. Bravissimo!
π: 0 β©: 0
I like how you basically said, "Piss off, Creationists". Without actually saying, "Piss off, Creationists". Very well done, Sir, very well done indeed. Your work always Impresses and Amazes Me. lol. :].
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks! Sorry for the late response, I'm answering my comments en masse when they build up.
π: 0 β©: 0
That is just one amazing piece of art when it gets right down to it. It reminds me quite a lot of how kanji evolved from just pictures (as well as Egyptian hieroglyphs), only in reverse.
You are making me want to try this out for myself, only doing it with my eyes open seems a little hard when I can see it plain on the paper.
π: 0 β©: 1
Feel free to go ahead! It's actually quite a simple and fun exercise..
π: 0 β©: 0
There's a growing community of us nature maniacs on DA!
π: 0 β©: 0
wow! i was taking a look at those comments! quite a discussion you guys been having! well, anyway, cool idea! i would have never thought about an thing like this!! it is so cool! this happens to me whenever im tryin to make a flip book!
π: 0 β©: 1
it's lovely, the flip book thing!
π: 0 β©: 0
Amazing. My younger brother- who very rarely takes any interest in my work- was peering over my shoulder awestruck as we scrolled up and down several times.
The way the letters morph is both unexpected and pleasing to the eye. I think I might just print this out and put it on my bedroom wall!
instant +fav!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you! Do print out, this work is free for all.
π: 0 β©: 0
One problem with this being an analogy for biological evolution is that it starts off with recognisable information, and becomes scribble over several generations (albeit, a beautiful scribble). It starts with real information in the form of an english word, and then corrupts that original information until it becomes elaborate, yet indecipherable, patterns. That's more like devolution. Evolution requires the addition of new genetic information, which is not shown here.
Furthermore, beauty is not information, as you seem to imply. Beauty can be seen in the grand canyon, but that was clearly not designed, nor does it have any information written by the water that carved it.
This typography exercise is at best a badly thought out illustration of evolution, and at worst, a misleading answer to informed criticisms of evolution.
Labelling those you disagree with as "lazy" and "dumb" instead of using evidence to back up your assertions is not a good technique.
If you plan to answer, please know that I intend to keep any further discussion civil, even friendly. I don't believe either side should resort to childish name-calling.
Love your work on Snaiad, by the way!
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually, information IS being added here, albeit in an uncontrolled way. The minor extensions of some strokes grow into weird, springy structures, for example. But I get your point; The problem here is that there is no pressure for selection. (I.e. I didn't apply any parameters when picking out the next generation) Whereas this patterning does not model the finer details of real-life biological evolution, it helps people unfamilliar with the idea to understand how small changes can add up to big ones over successive generations.
π: 0 β©: 0
Wow, great illustration of the evolutionary process.
π: 0 β©: 1
Brilliant! I feel as if you're seeing the world on a whole other level than the rest of us.
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
Wonderfully executed. I should think that (in the USA at least) if more biology teachers spent time explaining evolution in terms similar to this(before going further in depth), then there would be *far* fewer people who just dismiss natural selection out of hand. Thankfully, my second biology teacher did take the time to explain evolution in terms very similar to this, though I still despise his damn dirty hippy beliefs on just about every other subject (space exploration is foolish my ass).
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not just evolution that needs to be taught better, it's critical thinking as a whole. I think schools need to have entire classes devoted to skepticism and the theory of knowledge, with examples drawn from astrology, religion, creationism, etc to show all the forms bullshit can take... Btw, I don't think space exploration is -that- foolish, at least when the inner solar system is concerned. But it shouldnt take priority over maintaining what we already have down on earth.
π: 0 β©: 0
i had a meal and watched some south park and i'm not sleepy any more
there's one thing i want to settle:
"Oh my dear god. This is one of those creationist claims that are so shamefully out-of-touch with reality that even biblical literalists warn their flock not to use it in an argument."
first of all i ain't in anyone's flock just so u know. oh and observations about entropy are based on that principle
what i was trying to say is that no natural system has ever evolved to the better. especially not human designed systems (which if u think about it would be evolution controlled by a product of evolution so it still fits the naturalist view). DNA of living things degrades and those beings die (even though for short periods of time they become almost a , nature is polluted by it's own alleged product (man), almost all mutations have proven to be damaging etc. u can't even tell for shure wether human progress is for the better or for the worse (even though we all love the comfort of modern life, pollution is a shadow upon it). u can even try little experiments on the subject. blenders and human society are very good guinea pigs, none proving to be a perpetuum mobile.
we know that as 'the nature of all things'. we learn it from the craddle and live with it. but somehow this comes in contradiction with the theory we have all learnt as we grew up. it would require more that just the possibility of the ideal perpetuum mobile (which would be only self-sufficient) but the existance of a system beyond perfect, that would be able to produce other independant systems without being affected. that's just a lot to take for granted.
"You are yet young, go do some research, read some real books. Not just about evolution, but in all aspects of life. When you read a book, read ANOTHER one about the same subject to be certain. When someone tells you that something is x, go that extra mile and objectively try to gather information about x. Then, and only then, can you understand the difference between theory and pseudoscience, between a debate and being defensive, between pidgin English and grammar, between viruses and the βamoebic utopiaβ, between crystals and living organisms, forgeries and evidence, objectivity and agenda-pushing, thought and submission."
exactly. i take nothing for granted (except for the 'positive' sciences that are easy to verify). i don't even trust my own theories until others prove that they are flawless, much less someone else's
π: 0 β©: 1
There is a difference between scientific ignorance and scientific skepticism.
π: 0 β©: 0
i'm too tired to relply any of these but i'll try to say something about your responses. many of u guys did your best to debunk me in any ways possible. in the future i will be a lot more carefull about the expressions i use because it seems they are bent on dooming me. also it is quite obvious that i am the only one around that questions the validity of this one theory that may very well be just a big confusion.
=avancna "To simply dismiss the theory of evolution as being "just a theory" is as valid as dismissing the importance of the Holy Bible as being "just a bunch of pamphlets."
exactly. the bible is justa a bunch of stories with moralising character for the old jewes unless the hystorical facts it claims prove to be true. but i'm not dismissing evolution either, i'm just questioning it because of the lack of hard evidence.
anyway,
there are many 'flavors' of the evolution theory. darwinism (unintermediated and unsupervised shift from species to species) is the most common version of the theory, that's why i assumed it is what we were both talking about. there r those who say that the whole process was supervised by god but if u research christian true beliefs (most christian have no idea what they believe in trust me on this i asked a lot) they don't quite match with the evolution theory (note: i didn't get the chance to talk to a statisticly reasonable number of non-christian religiuos people so i can't speak on that subject)
none of u understood the comparison between glass and diamondsL from ancient times ppl believed them similar because on a brief look they do seem so, they had what they believed was proof that they are similar in origin and nature: they looked alike. that was a confusion that got debunked quickly but that's not the point. the point is confusions like this happen all the time and it is possible that evolution may be one of them. i recommended 'Darwin on Trial' especially because the guy is a lawyer and has been trained to spot confusion and to weight the validity of proof (of course after consulting a specialist about them). it is a pity he's a christian now, indeed.
i know that glass is amorphous and diamonds have a crystal nature (i'm not shure about the exact english terms, i've only learnt such things in my mother tongue) but if u look at them without any instruments it'll take u a bit to tell the two apart.
i believe that because i rarely use english in scientifical debates has contributed to me being shot down
anyway if i get the time i'll discuss all the points u brougt. i don't want to prove that evolution is true or not, but only that it's not quite a fact.
peace
π: 0 β©: 2
You fail to realize that the Ancients realized that diamonds and glass were very different from each other even in Ancient times, given as how the former came from rocks, and the latter was made from melting sand in fires.
Furthermore, if you'd actually take the time to do some research, you'd find that there are literally libraries upon libraries of documented evidence supporting Evolutionary Biology, from examinations of fossil organisms, to comparisons of fossil organisms to living organisms, comparison of living organisms, and the geneaology of living organisms, both wild and cultivated.
Only the most close-minded, willfully ignorant, and their followers dismiss such evidence.
π: 0 β©: 1
i have documented myself. it's just that there r so many missing links in the fossil archives and the whole idea is a bit contradictory to physics. i'm quite shure most ppl haven't even thought about it and have just taken it as a certainty. it got so much publicity because it was an alternative to creationism, one more reason for ppl to not believe in god and that publicity is pretty much it's best 'proof'. i don't know what it could be replaced with (not creationism, it's just as absurd) but it is very likely it will collapse at some time.
ah whatever it's not like our lives depend on it
π: 0 β©: 2
Furthermore, if evolution is as absurd as you so claim, then, how do you explain how living things are related to other living things, as well as living things being related to fossil species?
π: 0 β©: 0
No you have not done any documentation or research, AT ALL, otherwise you would know that there are numerous chains of fossil species that go from more primitive to more advanced. Unless, of course, you're just ignoring these evidence, or pretending that they don't exist. Evolution does not contradict physics, given as how the 2nd law of physics is not broken when new species arise, given as how it says that only energy and matter can not be created or destroyed, NOT NEW FORMS OF LIFE.
"Publicity" is not proof. Evidence and research are proof. That is why creationists are not scientists, while biologists are scientists.
Evolutionary biology is a science, and creationism is not a science because scientists have been doing research and gathering evidence for the last one and a half centuries that support the idea that life on earth changes with each generation for the past 3 billion years. If you had actually done the research you claimed to have done, you would know this already. Creationists do no science whatsoever. All creationists do are play the part of spin-doctors, and the only reasons why creationists can't get into scientific journals are because they are wholely incapable of writing scientific articles, and that they are wholely incapable of performing even the most basic scientific experiments. Furthermore, nowhere is there an official requirement that forces people to stop believing in God if they also want to believe in the validity of evolution. Only bigots say things like that.
And yes, given as how evolution helps to explain how Life works, as well as help us grow our food, and make life-saving medicines and medical treatments, our lives do indeed depend on evolutionary biology.
π: 0 β©: 1
it is hard to look at alleged evidence on a belief/system of thinking objectively after being raised in that certain belief/system. this is similar to what copernic's case. if it is hard to fit evidence into a certains system then that system is probably flawed.
i take it u like biology. then u must know that no obvious evolutionary is complete to this day. it takes quite a lot of intuition to make them plausible. but enough with this.
"Evolution does not contradict physics, given as how the 2nd law of physics is not broken when new species arise, given as how it says that only energy and matter can not be created or destroyed, NOT NEW FORMS OF LIFE."
it's not the 2nd law of physics it's the second law of thermodynamics (i guess u don't like physics as much as biology 
"And yes, given as how evolution helps to explain how Life works, as well as help us grow our food, and make life-saving medicines and medical treatments, our lives do indeed depend on evolutionary biology"
it would not be the first when science had postulated a certain model that seems to work. the pre-galilei (btw i like the quote) astrolonomy worked acceptably. it predicted some eclipses with decent accuary and some other stuff i can't remember now and it got a shitload of publicity from the catholic church and not only. but it was flawed (almost completely wrong). however after the world accepted galilei's model these predictions became a lot more accurate. modern man has solid evidence on this cause he's been in outer-therestrial space.
what u (and nobody else apparently) don't seem to get is that i'm not a creationist. please get that into your thinck skull. i'm not shure everything about the evolution theory is wrong (just like pre-galilean astronomists were rigth about stuff rotating around other stuff) but some of it's premises r either wobbly or plain absurd. i'm not saying creationists r right either cause i have no proof god rly exists. i guess we should wait and see the new descoveries scientists (geneticians in particular) make
π: 0 β©: 2
Furthermore, given as how you've used nothing but Creationist arguments from "it's only a theory," to "evolution rules out God," your claim that you're not a Creationist sounds as hollow as the claim "I'm not a Nazi sympathizer, and I'm not an AntiSemite, but I believe that those evil Jews are a menace to the Aryan Master race, and should be exterminated as soon as possible."
π: 0 β©: 0
You need to get it through your thick skull that Evolutionary Biology is not a belief system. IT IS A SCIENCE.
What do you mean by "u must know that no obvious evolutionary is complete to this day. it takes quite a lot of intuition to make them plausible. but enough with this"?
Why do you keep insisting that this false statement is true? Scientists have found millions of species of fossil organisms, and it's extremely unfair, if not downright stupid, to disallow these scientists from making predictions and observations from the study of these fossils simply because not all extinct species have been found.
And if you really did understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic Entropy, which you don't, you'd know that one system can maintain its own order by contributing to the disorder of another nearby system, which is how Life on Earth stays alive, by receiving radiant light and thermal energy emitted from the Sun. I mean, what part of "the 2nd Law has nothing to do or say about new species emerging because biological species are not "energy" or "matter"" can you not wrap your little head around? A new organism comes into being when the parent buds off a little bit of its own tissue, and then grows by taking in organic matter from the surrounding environment. That the vast majority of organisms use gametic tissue, which has only half of the genetic material of its creator, means that the offspring will be slightly different from the parent, and thus, with each passing generation, changes accumulate.
To claim that this process doesn't exist because it defies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic Physics is not only absurd, but betrays your gross ignorance of both Biology and Physics.
What the hell is "astrolomony?" If you mean "astrology," all that was was just fortune-telling that's based off of the movement of the stars, which was the by-product of the development of a star-based calender system.
For your information, Claudius Ptolemy, aka "Ptolemy the Astronomer," was not an astrologer, he was an astronomer.
Furthermore, you can't seem to get it through YOUR thick skull that you don't know anything about Evolutionary Biology. Do realize that Creationism is not an alternative theory to Evolutionary Biology anymore than phrenology is an alterative to neurosurgery. That you claim not to be a creationist does not help your stance because you have done nothing but use creationist arguments, arguments that have been disproven for years and years.
π: 0 β©: 1
"What do you mean by "u must know that no obvious evolutionary is complete to this day" typo. i meant no obvious evolutionary fossil chain ... i have documented myself on this. some claim that there are complete chains but it takes quite a lot of imagination to believe them.
I mean, what part of "the 2nd Law has nothing to do or say about new species emerging because biological species are not "energy" or "matter"" can you not wrap your little head around?
i wasn't talking about already formed living beings. as further proof to what i said, all organisms die. it's the problem of the first cell (how it was formed) and the triggering mecanism for new organs (eg how a few cells decided inglobate photosensitive substances and others shielded these and so on to make a primitive eye). matter, being inclined to simplyfication, it would not group itself into a complex structure just because of intermolecular interactions in the "primordial soup". further more, complex organic substances would not have formed.
energy isn't enough for such things to happen. no matter how high the thermal aggitation (i think that's how it's called in english) is, new substances will not be produced (compared to low aggiation. if u put poatasium in water i'm certain u will notice) chemical reactions will be accelerated but so will the natural decomposition of matter. boil water all u want, it will not give birth to life (actually u won't even find new substances in there)
and there's something u seem to miss: the sun doesn't emmanate just energy. it also bombards the earth with a penetrant radiation of rather heavy particles that further increases the decomposition rate of matter (especially on organic matter. see cernobil)
"What the hell is "astrolomony?" " another typo. i meant astronomy. i guess i was really tired. i never meant to say anything about astrology (the resemblance between the words is quite annoying at times). as a skeptic i do not believe it because it doesn't have any real and verifiable base.
"For your information, Claudius Ptolemy, aka "Ptolemy the Astronomer," was not an astrologer, he was an astronomer."
i know who he is and i respect his work. did i say otherwise? prolly my typo was the fault for this
"That you claim not to be a creationist does not help your stance because you have done nothing but use creationist arguments, arguments that have been disproven for years and years"
i have no idea where you've been living but have u ever heard any documented creationists make a case. their arguments are far more meta-physical than mine. they simply say that if u want to believe in god (and him being almighty) u will believe that he made this world from scratch, instantly and mature. i know these thing because creationists have tried to convince me about this. it's just that they have such a mystical view on the world it'a laughable.
cu, i wanna watch some south park
π: 0 β©: 2
You don't even have an elementary grasp of science.
π: 0 β©: 1
i wonder y u would say that. u're lucky i never mind insults. oh well, whatever u say my allknowing friend.
π: 0 β©: 2
The only thing you've been able to accomplish with your excessive skepticism is to allow yourself to become wholely ignorant of understanding how even the most basic ideas of science function.
π: 0 β©: 0
You know absolutely nothing about science. You haven't so much as even opened a book, ever. Otherwise, you'd know that it was creationists who say that "Evolution is a theory, not a fact," it was creationists who say that "Evolution leaves out God," and it was creationists that claim that "Evolution defies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics."
Only a blind fool can't realize that Thermodynamics applies to biological evolution, and if the fossil record is as incomplete as you claim it is, then how come people have been able to write literal libraries upon libraries of information about fossil animals like dinosaurs, birds, placoderms, snails, nautiluses, ammonites, clams, brachiopods, bryozoans, bony fish, sharks, horses, brontotheres, rhinoceroses, elephants and people? I bet you've never even seen a book about dinosaurs.
π: 0 β©: 1
"and if the fossil record is as incomplete as you claim it is" it is. i am shocked that u do not know such things. any biologist will tell you that there are missing links.
"I bet you've never even seen a book about dinosaurs."
u have a knack for going to lenghts trying to insult me when u have doubts about your own knowledge. libraries of clasifications and other studied do not provide proof about the exact way these organisms appeared. it can suggest (to a mind prepared for this) some patterns. but if u try hard to invent a different pattern that fits in some cases u will see that evolution itself is based on a whole lot of speculations
"Evolution leaves out God,"
as far as i was told, most religions r not compatible with a creationist evolution. but let's leave religion out of this, it does not concern either of us
at least pure naturalist darwinism is considered (by most modern biologists) an outdated and incomplete idea. i hope that u know at least this. i will try to find some refferences (can't quite do that from the top of my head) to show u this, if i find the time.
π: 0 β©: 0
i keep replying u in the evening when i'm tired. again pls excuse any typos ( i left out a '?' and some 's')
π: 0 β©: 0
actually that was peace out. but i pressed send to early. i AM tired ...
π: 0 β©: 0
you do know that evolution is just a theory not a proven fact right?
π: 0 β©: 3
A scientific theory refers to a series of explainations that describe how particular natural phenomena occur. Scientifically speaking, "theory" ranks above "fact," as a "fact" would make little sense without any understanding.
To simply dismiss the theory of evolution as being "just a theory" is as valid as dismissing the importance of the Holy Bible as being "just a bunch of pamphlets."
π: 0 β©: 0
Hooo boy. I have been expecting something like this for QUITE some while. Your comment alone proves that you know absolutely nothing about science, let alone what the word βtheoryβ means. Let me help.
The American College Dictionary defines the word theory as; "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena." Let me break this down into a simpler English you can digest; if something is βjust a theory,β this doesnβt mean it is uncertain.
You and I regularly depend on theories in our daily lives. First thereβs the Theory of Gravity, which is pretty self explanatory. When you chuck a Bible from the fifth window itβs going to fall, unless you find a way to counter the force of gravity. Newton observed these facts and compiled a theory, yes, one of those βjust a theoriesβ, to explain what he saw. So far itβs held on quite nicely. Similarly, when you board an airplane, the wings keep you aloft because they are designed with theories of Lift and Aerodynamics in mind. Even when you sit by your computer to voice your ill-educated complaints, the monitor you see this text is operating on principles based on a -just a theory-, the theory of electromagnetism.
Evolution is also just a theory, the same way all of these things are theories. It is a body of knowledge formulated, tested and refined over a century and a half of scientific inquiry. It shows how life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago; how fife forms have changed and diversified over life's history; how species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors, and how natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change. No matter how your personal convictions might differ, the theory of evolution is based on these observable, empirically supported facts.
Like all other theories, the theory of evolution also has a profound impact on our practical life, more than you seem to realize. When you fall sick, new medicines developed against diseases which evolved resistance to the old ones keep you from rotting away. New drugs get tested on our close relatives -the chimps-, and they save lives from cancer, alzheimerβs, and even AIDS. Stem-cell research and artificial organs and tissues developed on animals grafted with human genes treat thousands of people whoβd die otherwise. You must have watched the Terminator. Do you know why Arnie is still alive? Because he has a transplanted heart valve that was grown on a donor pig. All of this work wouldβve been impossible had it not been founded on the evolutionary theory.
So, what were you asking? βYou do know that evolution is just a theory β¦ right?β Right. And unlike you, my mal-educated friend, I understand.
Iβm asking you with all of my frankness, what can you postulate instead of the evolutionary theory, that would help us understand the history of life on earth, AND make all of these discoveries feasible? Do you really think that, if people went on with that thinly-veiled βintelligent designβ of yours, they could have made sense of it all?
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>