HOME | DD
nemo-ramjet — Typographic Evolution
Published: 2006-03-25 16:28:57 +0000 UTC; Views: 13557; 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
lol u r very defensive on this. and if i was a hard-ass i would add insulting.
thing is, gravity, aerodynamics and electromagnetism can be very easily tested and proved. but the theory of evolution (at least pure darwinism, which i believe we r both talking about) has so many flaws that it's rly hard to defend it. i'm not saying that i believe in god or that i know how this world appeared and stuff but the darwinist explanation on how life appeared has just as much proff to it as the bible story (if not less, the way i've seen orthodox christians explain the genesis kinda makes more sense but still has very little proof).
how did the first bacteria appear? no single organite in a cell can function on it's own to allow anyone to say that they were slowly built by coincidence and then joined in the great utopia of the amoeba. and how did the complex DNA appear? don't tell me coincidence again cause a not even 100 bilion years wouldn't be enough for such things to happen. do the math on it's probabilities and find out. and this would be just the beginning of life. how the hell did the eye appear? none of it's components has a reason to exist without all the others. and what about intermediate species? none was ever found in the entire fosil archive.
oh and how about the second law of thermodynamics? the one that among other things states that entropy should decrease over time when darwinism assumes the opposite.
btw mutations in viruses r not shifts to different species. they just have a very fragile DNA that can easily get modified by cosmic/human generated radiation. they always maintain their main characteristics and considering how their multiplication is in fact a 'copy/paste' process, it's quite understandible. and the fact that monkeys r similar to humans, well so what? so is glass similar to diamons, that doesn't mean they have a common ancestor.
skull 1470 was a big confusion, the Piltdown man was a hoax manufactured by a clever guy (his name slips from my fingers atm) and advertised by Teilhard de Chardin and all other so-called intermediate species r either so human or so antropoid that they can't be proof by themselves, they would need the support of elements similar to the previously mentioned (but not created by men who believed almost at a theological level in darwinism). after all, darwin wasn't even a biologist.
if u weight the facts u realise that evolution is just a theory and it's not even so scientific. more like a phylosophical theory. u need to believe in it (just like in god) to make it seem real.
i suggest u read 'Darwin on Trial' by Phillip Johnson (a very objective view on the idea itself), 'Shattering the Myths of Darwinism' by Richard Milton (that also discusses radiometric age determination) and 'Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolutionism' by Dr. Lee Spenter (a respected biophysicist shows that it's quite improbable from genetical reasons). and try to be more objective will ya?
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
This might seem like a moot point in light of the evolution vs. durrism, but I need to point something out:
"....so is glass similar to diamons, that doesn't mean they have a common ancestor"
Hahah, ech-erm...bleh, uh....what? Diamonds are as similar to glass as a cheeseburger is to a breast implant. Sure, they have a similar size, similar feel, and both get the doting attention of obese, drooling men, but that's where the similarity ends. You see, glass is silica-based, noncrystalline and manufactured by humans. Diamond has a very specific crystalline structure, is made of pure carbon, and is naturally produced through geological forces compressing loads of organic material.
Also, how can you even bear to compare mineralogical specimens and their creation with the natural processes by which organic life forms come about? That's knee-slapping goodness. MOR PLZ.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If anything, diamonds are more similiar to cheeseburgers, and glass is more similiar to breast implants.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's indeed why I used those two as analogies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Still, he thinks that because diamond and glass look similiar, the Ancients thought they were the same, nevermind that the Ancients could tell the difference between diamond and glass.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hahah, so I read. Pliny the Elder comes to mind when it comes to gem and mineral classification.
Shit, I can't even argue with this guy anymore. Srslylol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think I need a strong sedative now.
Maybe some Nyquil with a jigger of brandy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You fail to realize that the theory of evolution has been tested, and been observed for the last 9 to 12 thousand years, when the first people began domesticating animals and plants. In a nutshell, "evolution" is "descent with modification," in that organisms change slightly from their ancestors with each passing generation. Humans have been able to take advantage of this by selecting particular organisms with qualities that suit their human overseers, and allowing these organisms to produce offspring, which are, in turn, also selected to produce more offspring. Charles Darwin, and other naturalists about 150 years ago, realized that the same thing occurs in Nature, as well, with the environment, and other organisms selecting which would survive, and reproduce, and which would not.
I think it's grossly unfair to claim that there has been no observation of evolution in action.
Furthermore, evolution does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, given as how the 2nd Law does not say anything about abiogenesis, especially since there is no such thing as "biological entropy."
The first "life" are presumed to be either self-replicating strands of RNA, or self-replicating proteins/amino acid clumps, and not bacteria.
Mutations in viruses allow them to overcome their hosts' defences, as well as allow them to cross species boundaries in order to infect new hosts. All viruses have mutation rates higher than those of true living organisms, such as bacteria or animals, given as how unlike true living organisms, viruses' genomic replication has no safety mechanisms to check for mistakes.
Your analogy for "glass is similiar to diamond" is faulty, given as how they are not similiar: glass is an extremely viscous liquid form of silicon dioxide, often with impurities, while diamond is a crystalline solid, formed from carbon.
Also, Piltdown Man was a hoax, and nobody knows who made it in the first place. However, do realize that Piltdown Man served only to confuse human paleontology so much that many scientists found that human lineage made more sense without it, even before it was revealed to be a hoax.
Darwin was a biologist, more importantly he was a naturalist. His contributions to biology are invaluable, especially since he helped to organize the classification of barnacles: his treatises on barnacles, "Cirripedia," remains in circulation, and in several editions.
Phillip Johnson is not an objective man, given as how he vowed to his mentor, Reverend Sun Moon, that he would help destroy evolution. Phillip Johnson is a politically-motivated lawyer, and has very little expertise, if any at all, in biology.
Dr Lee Spenter and Dr Michael Behe plead their cases by claiming that because we don't understand everything in Biology, we never will and that that is proof of God.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Before beginning, I see that despite your long dictum, you have utterly failed to answer my previous question, (if evolution had no basis on reality, how could drugs tested on apes work on humans) but I'll get to that later. The entire paragraph you've written is, I must admit, so full of misconceptions and skewed truths that only a mot-a-mot vivisection can sort it out straight.
“...lol u r very defensive on this...”
It's called debating. I wrote you a long reply because I wanted to inform you while showing you that your premises are false.
“...and if i was a hard-ass i would add insulting...”
I'm sorry if this offended you, I -know- my tone is generally a little incisive, but this is just me. I assure you that I write all of this with no intent of insulting you. I'll keep reasonably civil for the rest of this debate.
“...thing is, gravity, aerodynamics and electromagnetism can be very easily tested and proved. but the theory of evolution... has so many flaws that it's rly hard to defend it...”
It is very funny that you should be saying so, even though I gave you concrete, everyday evidence of evolutionary principles in action on my last post. Were you even reading carefully? The theory of evolution states that lifeforms change over time, by themselves, into differentiated populations we label “species”. Mankind, being a life-form of this earth, is likewise descended from animals. Based on this fact, scientists and pharmaceutical companies test and develop hundreds of life-saving drugs on mice and primates such as chimpanzees. Descendants of a common ancestor with mankind, these animals' bodies respond to similar stimuli in similar ways, and observing their reactions allows scientists to develop potential cures. Had living beings originated “ex-nihilo” for every different species (including man,) we wouldn't be able to observe such life-saving cross-compatibility. I don't know how I can be any clearer than this, but I'll give you a reference that demonstrates these processes brilliantly, and in great detail.
(Pharmacophylogenomics: genes, evolution and drug targets
D. B. SEARLS, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2, 613; August 2003)
( [link] )
“...at least pure darwinism, which i believe we r both talking about...”
Nope, we're not. See below.
“...but the darwinist explanation on how life... But not created by men who believed almost at a theological level in darwinism...”
I think this is the cornerstone to all of your distorted misunderstanding of evolution. You assume that “Darwinism” is analogous to the evolutionary theory. Furthermore, you make the mistake of assuming “Darwinism” and thus, evolution, as a dogma, an uncritical movement that's indistinguishable from a religion. Both of your premises are false.
To begin with, equating the theory of evolution with “Darwinism” is tantamount to calling physics “Newtonism,” or psychology “Gocleniusism”. Like all of these disciplines, evolution is a part of a scientific outlook, and it has grown, updated and evolved considerably after Darwin's time. True, Darwin first proposed the theory, but since his time many advancements have been made, and many gaps of information have been filled. Just a few examples; The agent of inheritance has successfully been identified as genes, (See Gregor Mendel) and over the last quarter century, research into genetics (See practically every science publication) has opened a whole new field of evolutionary research; it has been proved that genes shuffle themselves inside the genome (See Barbara McClintock's Nobel-winning work), and even among different organisms. (See Carl Woese's “Interpreting the universal phylogenetic tree” at [link] )
As you can see from these examples, the theory of evolution goes way beyond Darwin and his “Origin of the Species”. (Which I'm beginning to suspect is the only book on the subject that you know of,) Many prominent scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Ernst Mayr, Sean Caroll and Stephen J. Gould (Amazon.com. use it.) have contributed to it as much as, if not more than Darwin himself. All of this should point out to you that evolution is a constantly self-updating, self-scrutinizing and self-correcting body of knowledge. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of a dogmatic, absolutist religion, the kind that you try to see it as. Evolution has no gospel, no prophet. Evolution is not sacrosanct, it only searches for explanations that work in real life. It looks like a dogmatic religion only when squinted at through the veil of one.
“...i'm not saying that i believe in god or that i know how this world appeared and stuff (if not less, the way i've seen orthodox christians explain the genesis kinda makes more sense but still has very little proof).appeared has just as much proff to it as the bible story...if u weight the facts u realise that evolution is just a theory and it's not even so scientific. more like a phylosophical theory. u need to believe in it (just like in god) to make it seem real...”
I have no information (not did I care, until your first intrusion,) about what/how much you believe, so fear not for I shall not judge you. Here you wrongly assume that evolution is mutually exclusive with a theistic belief system. When asked about his or her religion, no one says that they are “evolutionists” or “darwinists”. In fact, it might surprise you that many people, (myself included) who have no problems with accepting the evolutionary theory comfortably carry on their Christian beliefs. (Read Kenneth Miller's “Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution” for an excellent first-hand account of one. Hell, in fact go and buy it now at [link] 
There is another fundamental problem in your forced contrast of the evolutionary theory and Orthodoxy in terms of life's origin. You seem to overlook that religious outlooks, although sharing a certain premise, can and do clash violently -among themselves- about creation, and pretty much everything else. I have the misfortune of living in a predominantly muslim country. If you tell these bums that “...the genesis kinda makes more sense,” you are going to get some very ugly looks, for they think allah, not pantokrator is responsible for creation. Do you get what I mean? Differing religious assumptions about creation are just as unstable as the fallacious comparisons you make with the theory of evolution.
“...how did the first bacteria appear? no single organite in a cell can function on it's own to allow anyone to say that they were slowly built by coincidence and then joined in the great utopia of the amoeba... and how did the complex DNA appear?...”
It's organelle, not organite. Furthermore, you make an extreme error in comparing bacteria to the “...great utopia of the amoeba...” (which could make a great name for a rock band, but not much else.) Bacteria are prokaryotes, meaning that they are much smaller and lack a distinctly formed nucleus and the advanced “organites” seen in eukaryotic cells (such as the amoeba.) The difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is such that you and I would be more closely related to an amoeba than to a bacteria.
I'm going to explain the rest all according to Neal D. Buffaloe and Dale F. Ferguson's Microbiology encyclopedia, so bear with me. Let's begin with the “bacteria”, generally considered to be the most primitive structures that carry out the basic functions of life. Although they seem to be as simple as it gets, there exist other structures that make bacteria incredibly complex. But small things are not as simple as you make out to be. There are viruses, which are a little more than a bunch of nucleic acids coated with certain proteins that enable them to latch on to bigger structures. Beyond viruses, we have smatterings of self-replicating organic molecules called prions. Beyond even these, all life is composed of basic classes of molecules; carbohydrates, lipids (fats) proteins and nucleic acids. Combinations of proteins and nucleic acids are the building blocks for your “...complex DNA...” (but we have a bit more before we get there.” Now, these nucleic acids can form whenever there are complex aggregations of different elements in an active, dissolving medium. Such a medium can be volcanic vents, a mixture of clay, ice or water, or all. The primordial earth, awash in water and brimming with thermal extremities a young, unstable age, was an ideal environment for all of these supposed conditions. Experiments simulating the atmosphere and conditions of the early earth by Miller, et al, have succeeded in synthesizing basic amino acids. (Read the paper by Chang, S., D. DesMarais, R. Mack, S. L. Miller, and G. E. Strathearn. 1983. Prebiotic organic syntheses and the origin of life. In: Schopf, J. W., ed., Earth's Earliest Biosphere: Its Origin and Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)
The earliest self-replicating molecules developed from aggregations of such amino acids. Once a structure begins replicating itself, complexity follows like an unraveling sock. Keep in mind that by this very early point, nothing was alive. The random chemical interactions between different classes of organic molecules were more akin to the formation of rust than true processes of life. Over increasing magnitudes of complexity, the self-replicating nucleic acids took on more and more elaborate forms and acquired coatings of lipid molecules, forming empty bubbles cradling themselves. (Lipids naturally form vesicles due to their hydrophilic heads and hydrophobic tails, go look at your high-school science textbook) It is theorized that this course of development eventually led to the most primitive cell-like structures, and from there on, the earliest archeans and bacteria. (the prokaryotes I mentioned earlier.)
Now, from the earliest bacteria to your “utopia of the amoeba”. As I told above, the difference between the earliest cells and the more advanced eukaryotes is vast. Eukaryotes have nuclei and organelles, and they are thought to have developed through a line of succesive symbioses called the endosymbiotic theory. To greatly simplify the endosymbiotic theory, (use wikipedia, for chrissakes [link] ) imagine different simple cells assume different roles in one greater cell like different castes of ants in a colony. One lineage of bacteria-like organelles took on a role digesting nutrients and manufacturing ATP molecules, today we call it the mithochondrion. Another line of blue-green bacteria took the role of photosynthesis and wound up as the chloroplasts of plants and protists alive today. As for your “no single organite in a cell can function on it's own...” objection, see for yourself that organelles in eukaryotic cells have their own independent DNA sets, and undergo a separate set of divisions alongside their parent cell. Mithochondria or other organelles do die when taken out of their parent cells, but this is only due to billion plus years of co-habitation. For an analogy; a modern human would also die when exposed to the extremes of weather without home, clothes or shelter, but does this mean that people are inseparable parts of buildings, or clothing?
As I'm explaining the long, long way from the earliest self-replicating molecules to endosymbiosis, don't think that this was a simple or instantaneous event. The entire transition took more than three billion years. This is more that ninety percent of all the time life has been recorded on earth.
“...don't tell me coincidence again cause a not even 100 bilion years wouldn't be enough for such things to happen. do the math on it's probabilities and find out. and this would be just the beginning of life.
First, absorb all the information I've given above. Yes, a complex, modern cell wouldn't pop out of existence from a jumble of elements for all eternity, but the simpler, reproducing organic units can. Once you have self-replicating forms, structural complexity can increase exponentially in no time. Over time, such simple units have combined into more complex ones and brought today's eukaryotic cells into being. Your chief error here has been the inability to comprehend the cumulative history of cellular evolution. The entire process is comparable to an ascending series of stairs, while you see each step as a singular column that has to be built from the scratch.
“...how the hell did the eye appear? none of it's components has a reason to exist without all the others...”
Nonsense. Again, like the evolution of the cell, you mistake a series of cumulative developments for one big improbable structure. First of all, there is no single “eye” in the natural world. Different groups of animals have evolved different types of eyes independently in their natural history. The mollusks have their own eye design, totally unrelated to anything else. Likewise, insects, chelicerates and crustaceans have their own versions of compound eyes. Us, the mammals, have yet another kind of eye. The evolution of the complex vertebrate eye with a lens, ciliary and radial muscles, etc is the result of a long process that involved small changes of a very simple structure, as follows:
*simple photosensitive cell
*aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
*an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
*pigment cells forming a small depression
*pigment cells forming a deeper depression
*the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
*muscles allowing the lens to adjust
For a clearer explanation, consult [link] Today, there are animals displaying each of these steps. Furthermore, certain proteins found in our own eyes are also found in primitive chordates, (with far more primitive eyes,) implying a common descent.
In both the eye and the eukaryotic cell, you display a form of induced ignorance called “argument of incredulity.” You ask “how could x have evolved” because you simply don't know how it happened. Instead of claiming something as “impossible” simply because you don't understand it, or you have only heard a source which claims so, the more logical choice is to seek out and do some research for yourself.
“...and what about intermediate species? none was ever found in the entire fosil archive...”
This is a crass display of the fact that you know nothing whatsoever of natural history. Here is a simple list:
Fish-tetrapod: Tiktaalik roseae, Ichthyostga, Acanthostega, Panderichthys.
Amphibian-reptile: Proterogyrinus, Hylonomus
Dinosaur-bird: Archaeopteryx, Velociraptor, Ambiortus, Sinornis
Reptile-mammal: Can you please google “mammal-like reptiles” or “synapsids”?
Ape-human:
-Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
-Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
-Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
-Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
-A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
-A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997)
As if this simple list wasn't enough, here's a complex one: [link] Read it.
“...oh and how about the second law of thermodynamics? the one that among other things states that entropy should decrease over time when darwinism assumes the opposite...”
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. [link]
Tell me honestly, what do you know about the laws thermodynamics? If you seriously stand behind this claim, my answer is: “Zilch.” To begin with, “Darwinism” says nothing about entropy. The second law of thermodynamics simply states that heat will not flow from a colder body to a warmer one (without using energy). In more technical terms, this means that in closed systems, entropy tends to increase. Well surprise, earth's biosphere is NOT a closed system. Look above in a clear day, what do you see? That's right, the Sun has been providing the Earth with light and heat for some billions of years. This source of energy provides life with all it needs to overcome the second law, and to grow up and develop into increasingly complex forms.
“...btw mutations in viruses r not shifts to different species. they just have a very fragile DNA that can easily get modified by cosmic/human generated radiation. they always maintain their main characteristics and considering how their multiplication is in fact a 'copy/paste' process, it's quite understandible...”
Here you are mistaking evolution with X-men, alongside making some pretty nonsense claims about DNA and mutations. Viruses don't have “fragile DNA”. In fact, viruses don't even carry DNA, there are viruses that carry RNA, double-and-single strands of DNA and any combination of these. The viral mode of replication is -nothing- like a copy-and-paste process. It is more like one of these snip-and-glue punk posters where every letter is hacked from something else. There is such a huge difference between the reproductive genetics of viruses and living organisms that your claim is baseless. Go learn about viruses first. [link]
“...and the fact that monkeys r similar to humans, well so what?”
So, you are a 'monkey'. Don't be afraid, so am I.
“...so is glass similar to diamons, that doesn't mean they have a common ancestor...”
This is because glass and diamonds are not living organisms. They don't reproduce and they don't have a method of inheritance, they are physical structures brought about by geological or mechanical forces. Sheesh, are you seriously comparing living organisms with lumps of matter? What a perfect example of a “
“...skull 1470 was a big confusion, the Piltdown man was a hoax manufactured by a clever guy (his name slips from my fingers atm) and advertised by Teilhard de Chardin...”
It's unknown exactly who made up the Piltdown hoax. Most people assume it is Charles Dawson, but there are numerous other candidates. It was a blatant forgery, but still it was exposed and debunked by scientists, not advocates of any form of I.D. As I told you before, science is a self-correcting, self-criticizing discipline that rigorously tests any given evidence. The fact that the Piltdown hoax was uncovered to begin with should tell you something about it. Today, no single worker accepts the Piltdown hoax as a valid evidence. ( [link] ) However, there are many other transitional ape-human forms (see the lists I've given you above) that have withstood scientific scrutiny, and whose authenticity is indisputable.
“...and all other so-called intermediate species r either so human or so antropoid that they can't be proof by themselves, they would need the support of elements similar to the previously mentioned...”
This is again a fallacy of argument. For the Nth time, There is a smooth line going from anthropoids to man, and some of them are so gradual that it's hard to tell them apart. ([link] ) You just come in and say “they are each unto themselves.” When a fossil plugs in the gap between fossil A and fossil C, you simply invent “gaps” between A,B,and C.
“...after all, darwin wasn't even a biologist...”
Huh? He studied at a university, and was made a Fellow at the Royal Society, so I don't see what you are talking about.
“...'Darwin on Trial' by Phillip Johnson (a very objective view on the idea itself...”
Philip Johnson is not a scientist, he studied law and is a preminent member of the Presbyterian church. He has no qualification or training in the biological sciences. Plus, he has some batshit-insane claims like AIDS is not related to HIV. (It's a curse of god, apparently.) His books are primarily written to add some sense of reality to the religious organization he belongs to. His “intelligent design” theories were taken apart by Stephen Jay Gould in Science magazine, and as if that wasn't enough, by the verdict of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in the United States has toroughly discredited his “intelligent design” ideology.
“...'Shattering the Myths of Darwinism' by Richard Milton (that also discusses radiometric age determination)...”
Milton's books are always about pseudoscience, and he is not a scientist, let alone a biologist. He is an amateur with a “background” as an engineer. In his other books he argues for an entire range of tried-and-tested paranormal junk such as kirillan photography, “secret” cold fusion experiments, etc. His “influences” include sad figures such as the sad catastrophic Velikovsky. I think it is this book that you've flipped through before writing your mistake-riddled note, and on all points he's committed the same errors as you have. I've read his book and it's so full of scientific misunderstanding that the only thing interesting about it is how it got published in the first place.
“...'Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolutionism' by Dr. Lee Spenter (a respected biophysicist shows that it's quite improbable from genetical reasons)...”
In this book the main thing Spenter is trying to argue for is that mutations are always harmful, and no information gets built up by random mutations alone. Mutations might be random, however, evolution is not. If one in a million mutations proves beneficial, that change is going to remain there and it's going to be added to that creature's genotype. Over a long time, such beneficial additions add up to new information. Even Spenter is saying that “microevolution” is possible and “macro-evolution” is a fantasy. However, he overlooks the fact that macro is only micro, in a vastly larger scale of time. This book is also only promoted by religious institutions, and never once by any respectable academic one. Even the preamble to this book states: "This book is a must for anyone who desires to defend the Bible in this increasingly "educated" society." Do you think -that's- objective?
“...and try to be more objective will ya?...”
That's all I have been doing. What about you? I've replied to each of your questions with references and sources, yet you have failed to answer mine on my previous note. If the length or detail of my reply makes you think I'm being defensive again, think twice. I have only demonstrated to you (and some others who have been making similar “smart” protests) that the study of science is one that requires someone to sort through and make sense of a very large body of information, one that generations of scientists have devoted their life's work. This is not readily accessible to laymen, and that might be the only mistake scientists have committed. Against this, for people like you to come up with lunchtime objections raised through a one-sided exposure to faulty data is truly sad to see.
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 “amoebic utopia”, between crystals and living organisms, forgeries and evidence, objectivity and agenda-pushing, thought and submission.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
crap i think that was a bit too long
and i forgot to say the 'pls excuse my english blah blah ...'
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
the term "proliferation" sounds better than "evolution"...
tracing the letters blindly over and over results with "visual complexity" but evolution is not about "complexity", it is about being "complicated".
cute drawing though..
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice idea, love it. It's so... Dawkins. And Hofstadter at the same time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Bazi harflerin sayica daha cok evrilmesi guzel bi detay olmus. Cok sevdim bu deviation'i. Zaten kullandigimiz harflerin hikayesi de boyle bisii, harfler ciddi ciddi evrim gecirmis halihazirda. Suraya yukledigim hadise yani: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
çok başarılı olmuş gif, dediğin gibi çok etkili geçişler olmasa da çok bilgi verici olmuş, ki etkileyici olması için gereken tek şey de bu zaten
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thanks...and thanks again for the favorite
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was my pleasure 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
why? they piss off us reality-based thinkers all the time...but then again it IS a chore to put up with their incessant drivel.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yep, and I manage to get myself caught up in debates on Xanga enough as it is... I suck at debating 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
very nice exercise. its almost like the devolution back into the fire-cracked turtle shells from where it came.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks a lot, and thanks for the faviorte as well
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
etkileyici olduğu aşikar... senelerdir bakmaya korktuğum önermeler hesabına bakmamı sağladı.. ve sanırım bununla sabahlarım..
Bu iş, biçimsel dizgeler dizisinde Fantazi kuralı olarak tanımlanıyor. Fantazi kuralı şöyle kullanılıyor; ilk olarak bir düzgün x dizidi yazılır (burada evolution) ve sonra bu "evolution" teorem olsaydı ne olurdu? diye sorarak fantazi kurulur. Daha sonra dizgeyi açılış satırı evolution olacak şekilde türetmeye devam eder vesonunda bir son satıra varırsınız. Burada dikkat edilmesi gerekn hiç yoktan bir teorem üreten bir kural olduğudur. Veri anlamında eski bir teoreme ihtiyacı yoktur. evolution'dan son satıra kadar tüm satırlar fantazidir.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
the idea is really neat! well you know in what extent i agree with it, and no comment about indirectly calling me dumb and lazy, but that still doesn't negate the fact that the idea is great. i like it. heh, the 'n' turned out looking like a sitting person.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oop, please don't take that bit personally Cassandra, you are my favorite semi-creationist
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
eee evolution'dan gelip nereye varýyoruz? bilmiyorum benim algým nedeniyle mi.. sonunda baþka anlamlý bir bütüne varýlmasý gerekmiyor mu?
( revolution mesela
yada her harfin bir kelimeye dönüþtüðü bir sonuca ( türlerin oluþmasý ) ? ?
böyle, sanki mutasyon geçirmiþ ama baþka bir türe dönüþememiþ gibi algýladým..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
evrim sürecinde "bir yere varılması" gibi bir neden yok, bu pek çok insanda var olan bir yanıgı. 20. yüzyılın başına kadar genelde biolojiden çok politika ile alakası olan kişiler (lysenko, vs) tarafından öne sürülen yanlış bir tanım bu.
Doğal şartlara göre değişen bir dizi tesadüfler sonucu insan türü "akıllanmış" bir durumda, bizim "sonuç" sandığımız şey aslında neden. "niye akıllandık" diye soruyoruz, ancak akıllı olmasaydık bu soruyu soramazdık zaten. Bu arada favori için çok teşekkür ederim
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yok benim bir yere varmaktan kastım "nihai" değildi. o konuda hemfikirim. ancak iyi bilirsin mutasyon %99.9 gibilerinden bir oranda ölüme neden olur. mutasyon geçiren canlılar yaşamını sürdüremez ve döllerini aktaramaz. istisnalar yaşar ve evrilir. bu noktada ya yeni bir tür tanımlar, yada içinde bulunduğu eski türü yeniden tanımlar.. işte bu aklıma takıldı. baktığım nokta yanlış olabilir ama sonuçta ulaşılan şey yine "tanımlı" bişey olmak zorunda değil mi? her harfin aynı hızda evrilmesi de aklıma takılan diğer bir nokta..
çalışma gerçekten dürten, düşündüren, keyif veren bi çalışma. o dürtülme sonucu refleks olarak yazdım, beğenimi iletmeyi unutmuşum : )
favori için de mukabele ederim : )
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lafı bile olmaz favoryanın
şimdi, bu mutasyon sorunu genelde evrimin "x-men" ya da "ninja turtles" gibi anlaşılmasından kaynaklanıyor. "mutasyon" deyince akla büyük deformasyonlar, kafası-beyni tam olarak büyümemiş embriyolar vs. geliyor, ki bunların yüzde 99 unun ölümcül olduğu doğru.
ancak mutasyon, ille de böyle çarpıcı bozuklukları kapsamıyor. mutasyonun tanımı; bir canlının genetik kodu kendini kopyalarken ortaya çıkan, orjinalinden farklı olan değişiklikler şeklindedir. hemen her insanda bu değişiklikler olur, ancak ufak-tefek farklar oldukları, ya da insan gen serisinde bulunan, canlının fenotipini (dış özelliklerini) etkilemeyen %80lik "çöp" kısmında bulundukları için yaşantımıza önemli etkileri olmaz, genellikle.
bazen de olur ama. örnek olarak, bakterilerin bir ilaca bağışıklık kazanması da bir mutasyonun sonucudur. insanlara bakıldığında, 1980'li yıllarda afrikada yaşayan insanların neredeyse hiç birinde aids'e karşı direnç sağlayan bağşıklık faktörleri yokken 2001 yılında yapılan bir araştırma, aids'in kası
ama bu aids'e dirençli insanlar tabii ki sivrilip aniden yeni bir tür olmuyor. türlerin oluşması çok daha uzun bir süreçtir ve böyle ufak mutasyonların milyonlarca yıl ve diğer popülasyonlardan izole kalması ile birikip, ana popülasyonla üreyemeyecek kadar farklılaşmasına dayanır. bir türün aniden "tanımlı" olduğu bir sınır yoktur, o sınır sadece farklı türlere kesin ve belirli sınırlarla ayrılmış tanımları yakıştırmaya çalıştığımızda ortaya çıkar. ki kimi zaman, bizim beşeri "tanım"larla ayırdığımız ve genetik olarak farklı türler sayılabilecek kadar farklılaşmış türler de, (aslan-kaplan, at-eşek, vs.) kırma yavrulara sahip olarak ortak kökenlerini çaktırmadan belli ederler.
çok yapıcı bir münazara oluyor, bu konuda tartıştığım bazı insanlar gibi hakarete varan cevaplar yazmadığın için hakikaten çok teşekkür ederim.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
abicim hakarete varan cevap istiyorsan onu da yasarıs : )
münazara aslında evrim teorisi odaklı bi hal aldı ki, itiraf edeyim amacım böyle bişey değildi. başta merak ettiğim tamamen senin eserinin daha güçlü bir hale getirilip getirilemeyeceği idi.. yanlış anlaşılmasın, zaten güçlü bir imaj vermişsin. nöronları okşuyor ama biraz değişiklikle rüstem batum misali tokatlayabilir mi, merak ettim : )
yazdıklarına bi itirazım olmadığı gibi bilgi tonajından dolayı teşekkürü borç bilirim. çalışmanı bu açıdan nereye koyduğunu merak ediyorum. yani başlangıç ile son geldiği ( biliyorum bir "son" değil aslında ) yer itibariyle.. evolution'un evolution'u nereye gidiyor? neye evriliyor?
bu arada şu senin xenomorph hayvanların bibloları varsa alı
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Damn, that's an interesting idea. The end result is completely fascinating. So you did this open-eyed but forgetting what the shape meant, just reproducing it in a way that exaggerated it on and on?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
more or less, yes. I just concentrated on the directions of the strokes, and the overall shape of the previous figure, without letters in mind. Soon enough, it started morphing
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>