HOME | DD
nemo-ramjet — 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
My Dearest Nemo,
Your second evolution (or third along with the original included) is somewhat looks like the now (or ever) debated cambrian explosion since the change seems a little bit of an abrupt change. However the point I want to make is not that, I think this model is (like you pointed out) is hard to disprove the notion of an intelligent design, since we are not sure how capable the and for that matter intelligent the designer is. if the "designer" has the power to foresee a deterministic end, and has the power to design the laws of physics to reach it you can easily combine the evolution scheme you present with that of a designer.
If the objects themselves somehow and inexplicably gain the will to copy themselves, the existence of that said will too might be attributed to an intelligent designer who was intelligent ebough to "trigger" the blind copying which somehow would lead to the "ultimate end". But since most of the ID people are creationists in disguise they seldom make such chalenging issues.
All in all, I believe in order to fully exemplify evolution in such a graphic example I think we first need to make sure why a given sequence shows a tendency towards self preservation through copying itself and allowing the diversity you have presented. I found Dawkins' theories (or better hypothesis) on that issue interesting and believe that once the need for life in molecular level is clarified I seriously suspect anymore of this ID and creatonism issues would be able to exploit the absence of evidence as the evidence of absence, or worse, the evidence of something else.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My bro Otis,
You are right in pointing out the 'why's of this presentation. However, my aim here is to show that blind replication can and does result in a complicity that might look designed, and that forms are not rigidly locked in time, thus clearing up the 'how?' in many people's heads about the evolutionary process. Of course, "why" would text want to replicate themselves? In this case, it's to provide an example that's more easy to tackle for (as much as I hate the word,= laypeople.
In the real world, the initial 'beginnings' happened through a process of aggregating organic molecules fusing into polymers, and then into amino-acid like molecules with a hint of replicating themselves. Simple, self-replicating vesicular structures, let alone eukaryotic cells, took a vast time to assemble, as shown by the 2-odd billion years of emptiness of Archean Earth. I believe you know the rest of the story. Come to think of it, I'll find a neat way to tell THAT, too, in the near future.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nemo Bro,
Another point that is usually made against the evolution is that the changes you have presented (no matter how small) are almost always malign, and would obstruct the path of change past the second step, since it would be detrimental to the organism and therefore the process slow as though it may be, "wouldn't" continue. That too is also easily dismissible, and I think this one is a good example to be a Hofstadter kind of illustration to describe that fallacy.
What I like about this example is that it subtly hints to the fallacy of stability isolated from the unstable and ever-changing environment. You see, if the environment as the word itself means something to our code of understanding, which is the norm and the terms we may hold as clear and therefore dear to us, we would see any change as detrimental since it does not conform to our desire for stability which originates from our usual modes of stability in which we can think. This pushes the "design" seekers to think of the changes as detrimental since their thought environments hardly ever change, and would not allow them to think of an environment in which the undesirables may be desirable.
I believe that has a lot to do with our hardwired way of thinking process which works in a predictable and conventional method makes it hard for us to relate to anything beyond our own understanding which dictates the "necessities" of being. We seek stability and anything that conflicts that annoys us. The notion of God I believe is the ultimate end of that need for stability, the absolute reference point, and the intelligent design is the sublimated version of that same absolute we crave.
So back to your illustration, it's obvious that the final step is jarring to most of us, and it seems like a deviation rather than evolution. Most of the people falsely equate evolution with perfection, since we can not think of two dynamics at the same time. And since we consider ourselves as the topmost edge of the imaginary evolution pyramid solely because we're superior to the other species within our own favored traits, evolution must be an absolute good and good is what we are. The illustration however, shows the degeneration of what we know to be meaningful into something what we thing that looks like gibberish rather than gibberish turning into something meaningful. Unless we can think of ourselves as a step within an ongoing process we will forever seek designers who we secretly think that is responsible of our final stage of perfection.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
dumb and lazy enough 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yakında bu lavukları AKP tübitak'a sokacak, o zaman dananın kuyruğu kopacak işte...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ne guzel dedin
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bir arkadasim bilimle dinin artik (akilli yaradilisda oldugu gibi) bir araya gelecegini, birinin bunu tereddute yer vermeyecek bir sekilde yapacagini, bunun da gidilebilecek son nokta oldugunu ve buna inandigini, vs soylemisti... acaip sasirmistim
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Qué? Yo no compreno hablaís?
lol, The final 'o' looks like a cow!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In my opinion it looks like an elephant
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
great idea really!
and cool about animation, it really plays like a perspective when scrolling
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"The results WOULD look like an "intelligent designer"s work, if you were lazy and dumb enough" HA!HA!HA! hilarious, i love you so much for saying that... great idea by the way, that is a really origional way to represtent something... explaining evolution to creationists is so friggin' hard...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
doubly so when the crets refuse to believe even the simplest fact that you show to them. thanks for your interest
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
scrolling gives the feel of the letters being animated. stunning.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ay caramba, I could've done an animation about this...thanks for the idea!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Soooooo...
When ARE you going to do the animation for this?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |