Evolution is so easy that a child can program it on its laptop...

Just stop

We still don't know what happened before big bang, bro. I see what you are trying to achieve but the answer isn't 'god'.

Prove it

You want me prove that we don't know something? Are you rerarded?

>implying the earth isn't 10,000 years old

We have rock samples that are billions of years old.

There ya go. You/We... simply don't know. What one person CHOOSES to believe is their choice. You choose to believe something you can't prove.... they choose to believe something they can't prove. Leave it at that and live your life. o7

>Are you rerarded?

yes

livescience.com/43584-earth-oldest-rock-jack-hills-zircon.html

There is no evidence that anything is "created" or "destroyed." According to all previous scientific observation, matter and energy may only be converted. God is not the null hypothesis, and there is no evidence the universe must have a creator. Just because you disagree with a popular hypothesis does not necessarily prove that your hypothesis is correct.

I can prove that big bang happened and I can't prove 'god'. God doesn't exist until proofs show up. A 2k years old book is not a proof.

Attached: maxresdefault(8).jpg (1920x1080, 295K)

You should know that cell organization cannot be explained by physics. Cells (or cell walls) aren't polar or missing electrons and even if they were, how would you explain the organization of polar molecules on the cell wall in specific regions? Specificity of information is not natural.

>You should know that cell organization cannot be explained by physics

Look at this retard.

Also anything that exists in nature is by definition natural. Everything that exist is natural. Postulated 'god' is supranatural ie it doesn't exist.

Amazing vid

>Thinking computer programming proves evolution
Lol, if anything it disproves it. Or at least its flaws as a incomplete theory.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY

>how would you explain the organization of polar molecules on the cell wall in specific regions?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773647/

C-14 has a half life of 5,730 years; your carbon dating method is a fallacy. Can't go back 'millions' of years. Nice try though

The fact that we can use evolutionary models to predict evolution on small scale proves it right.

>anything that exists in nature is by definition natural
and who invented the existence of nature

The core problem with any currently presented scientific model for the beginning of the universe, is that all models (to include cyclical) hold the requisite that something was always present. The issue with this, is that once you establish one item as being such a constant you must, also apply an infinity value, which renders the model illogical. This is so because you have an object whose placement is infinitely backwards on any timeline with it as an origin point, and another object as the destination. The big bang in this case being the destination point cannot logically occur as the “count down clock” is set to infinity.

>In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
>Big Bang Theory

Attached: chimp-thinking.jpg (410x615, 67K)

We use other radioactive isotopes you retard. Carbon is only used for living things.

Good post. (You)

Attached: old-fag-crush.jpg (405x423, 48K)

It doesn't "prove" it, but it does suggest that our models of evolution are consistent with our current understanding of biological phenomenon. I would argue that it is nearly impossible that evolution is perfectly accurate, as it likely has at least one flaw. However, it is currently our most accurate model and serves as a useful hypothesis on which to conduct future research.

We only know that the Universe exists and when the big bang happened. Nature = Universe

Calm down man, I'm not trying to rustle your fedora.

Anyhow, living snails have been dated using radiometric to be 27,000 years old. Furthermore layers where dinosaur fossils are found have been show, again using radiometrics, to be only 34,000 years old. I know you're angry because you've been brainwashed in your biology classes and you've likely gone deep into Dawkins books and reddit threads. You don't need to be angry brother Jesus Christ loves you.

Attached: 3times.jpg (1280x799, 118K)

The Universe has no obligation to follow your human logic that evolved on Earth.

>C-14 has a half life of 5,730 years; your carbon dating method is a fallacy. Can't go back 'millions' of years.
WOW you retard, you know what half life means?
Pro tip: Its not a game

Babys first scientific theory? If it works than it's a law until it doesn't and then we create better theory that works in these specific cases.

Interresting, I also seen some try to make bacteria eat plastic garbage with a similar technique where the bacteria was kind of starved till it had to evolve into eating plastics.

This is absolute nonsense. None of our scientific models are contingent on the fact that the universe has always existed. For example, our models of gravity and electricity are independent of whether time is finite or infinite. Regardless, there is no evidence that anything has ever been "created" or "destroyed," and we cannot assume that time must be finite or infinite.

>a snail that's alive right now somehow avoiding death for the past 27,000 years
Sounds like the jackass running the tests didn't know what the fuck he was doing to me.

Uh yeah I do, and using that isotope even 100,000 years would be out of the question. Do you know what it means? At least your edgy buddy was smart enough to know you use different isotopes when going back further.

>implying this isn't as much a leap of logic as the religion you profess to despise

You are lying mate. Post sources for your revelations.

That isn't evolution, that is learning.

We can't know anything with perfect certainty, which is why we no longer label theories as "laws." We can only iteratively improve our models by comparing past observations with modern research. No scientist claims to know everything.

How did rocks become life?

>a child can create evolution
>therefore creationism is btfo

By them interveining in the creation they are literally enacting creationism idiot.

An exterior force altering the natural order is creationism.
If it was evolution it would happen on it's own without the childs involvement on their computer.

I don't really understand computer programming, but I don't think it's really a good analogy for biological evolution. While both are ''evolution'', the mechanisms doen't seem to be same.

I find them fascinating. They are exhibiting a behaviour typical of females, where it seems to an observer that they think their opinion on reality changes the structure of reality.

>The Universe has no obligation to follow your human logic that evolved on Earth.
You are correct. The current logical models require that some state existed which is simply not observable by modern science, because self creation is illogical in our current state, but is undeniably requisite for this current state to exist.
That's simply not a logical rebuttal, on two counts. One, you can't cite a model which doesn't require the existence of something, and two,
>gravity and electricity are independent of whether time is finite or infinite.
They both exist. This means they had to have either always been here, which simply applies the conundrum to them, or that they are the product of some other event.

youtu.be/ZRIeOYpTS04

Erosion followed by energy minimization in water.

High temperatures and electrical storms over long periods of time.

scientificamerican.com/article/new-steps-shown-toward-creation-of-life-by-electric-charge/

Same shit.

solver.com/genetic-evolutionary-introduction

Just because something exists at the present moment does not necessarily mean it has always existed. No scientific models require the existence of anything other than the phenomenon they purport to describe. We technically cannot prove with absolute certainty that gravity and electricity have always existed. It would seem to be a fair assumption, but it cannot be rigorously proven. Regardless, you also assume that an infinite process must be inherently illogical, which cannot be proven true.

Both directed-creation and self-creation are illogical but directed creation is much less probable ie bullshit until proven otherwise.

>a child can program it on its laptop
no, and neither can you apparently.
protip: for the algorithm in this video the fitness function is defined completely differently than "real life" fitness function, in relation to the objective (which can also be a function but in these cases it's categorical and binary)

Wasn't that 70K generation experiment the one that showed the bacteria evolving the ability to metabolize new food? The development of nylonase, antibiotic resistance, and increased ability to digest grain in domestic canines are all examples of meaningful chemical evolution.

In the wild, we observe morphological change under selection pressure: size reduction at maturity in species preyed upon by humans and subject to minimum catch size requirements, for example; melanistic moths in areas with heavy anthropogenic soot pollution.

We also observe non-integer speciation: there was a report of domestic drosophila melanogaster being no longer interfertile with the wild type, and there are species with large ranges where each morph is interfertile with the ones nearest it, but sample individuals from very long distances apart (say, either end of a thousand-kilometer range) are NOT interfertile with each other. There are even so-called 'ring species', where the extended range forms a loop and the morphs where the far ends meet are distinct and non-interfertile... but each morph can breed with another morph along the ring.

If you wanna play science denialist could you go to the Trump Train thread?

Evolution is so easy one faggot can pretend some gay shy the post

Attached: 65924DE7-7D61-4849-A20A-E44B1C2C5CC2.jpg (800x792, 81K)

In biological evolution reproduction is the only fittness parameter. On computers you can tell your agents to optimize whatever the fuck you want for example tensile strength of materials in a structure.

>Evolution is so easy that a child can program it on its laptop.
Ah, so you're saying that evolution doesn't work without an intelligence behind it?

Can we just talk about hooktube getting canned by the jews?

What happened nordbro?

Attached: Give us your data goym.png (1107x457, 340K)

Computers need programs as input. Universe comes with physics preinstalled.

Says right there. Youtube threatened to sue unless the mp4 stream extraction was removed.

The fuck?
It materialized perfectly. WTF are you talking about?
I smell Juden

Use bitchute instead like normal people do.

Can bitchute convert the youtube url on the fly, don't think so.

sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos

No. Evolution is incontrovertibly proved by ‘missing link’ animals such as the platypus and marsupials that quite clearly bridge the GAO between reptiles and mammals. Not to mention the ample evidence of species creation through selective breeding of wolves to turn them to dogs. If evolution was false then dogs could not exist. It’s clear their reproduction changed them into a new species, an evolution occurred.

>Just because something exists at the present moment does not necessarily mean it has always existed
Very well. Then that something had to have an origin, and whatever caused that item to have an origin must, also have an origin. Ultimately, you're talking about a causality chain which is on the surface infinite, but cannot logically be infinite.
>No scientific models require the existence of anything other than the phenomenon they purport to describe.
Unless you're saying "this phenomenon was spontaneous" that's factually inaccurate.
>an infinite process must be inherently illogical, which cannot be proven true.
It can be mathematically because measuring the distance between two objects infinitely apart is not possible.

Stop using youtube fag. Youtube videos belong to Google.

>Computers need programs as input.
Indeed so.

>Universe comes with physics preinstalled.
Does it?
Just because this universe has it's particular set of physics *DOESN'T* mean that these aren't other choices. IOW, "who do you think 'preinstalled' the physics?"

>Not to mention the ample evidence of species creation through selective breeding of wolves to turn them to dogs. If evolution was false then dogs could not exist. It’s clear their reproduction changed them into a new species, an evolution occurred.
this is cool as fuck to think about, the fact that dogs almost certainly had an effect on us as well is spooky

We don't know of any other physics ie they don't exist. Until we prove god using science it doesn't exist.

We didn't need small scale computer models to see micro-evolution, we could see it displayed in real time. But what computer models did show is that evolution selects purely for utility over objective reality, as well any combination of the two.
>But understanding objective reality is a utility
WRONG. As my video shows, evolution uses shortcuts all the time to achieve its goals, and such is a poor explanation for the human mind and arrival of consciousness. Either we're missing something, or as the video suggests reality as we perceive it is just a surface perspective.

Wrong.
Evolution was disproved by the discovery of DNA; Charles Darwin himself said that the falsifiability of his theory would be the discovery of something that could not be explained by the successive small changes -- even the simplest of DNA is magnitudes of order more complex than is accountable for by random chance.

We are still evolving.

fastcompany.com/3064907/over-the-last-2000-years-humans-have-evolved-in-some-surprising-ways

>Until we prove god using science it doesn't exist.
No, you're wrong. Science is incapable of proving something beyond the material, observable universe.

For example, there is no scientific evidence for 'good' or 'evil', but these are quite plainly visible for you to see, with your own eyes, right now.

>Also, the menopause occurs later.
that is fucking cool

Listen brainlet. Darwins theory isn't used anymore. We developed better theories of evolution since then.

that's the point, that genetic algorithm only implements something kind of similar to (or rather inspired by) the real life evolution.
mechanics are way different. existence of genetic algorithms doesn't prove that biological evolution has occured, it only proves it's possible.

What if I told you that I didn't care about evolution either way because people seemed to get along without muh theory of evolution for 7,000 years?

>Then that something had to have an origin, and whatever caused that item to have an origin must, also have an origin.
These forces may not have an origin. There is no rigorous evidence that everything must have a cause, especially when considering natural forces. For example, gravity is simply a force induced by a mass, and this does not assume that the mass has always existed or had an origin. These models explain gravitational phenomenon with extreme accuracy, and none of the associated calculations make reference to the infinite chain of "origins" that you refer to.
>Unless you're saying "this phenomenon was spontaneous" that's factually inaccurate.
Nothing ever "created" gravity. Gravitational models do not assume that sources of gravitational force have always existed, nor that even gravity itself has always existed. The models only require that gravity exists at the present moment.
>It can be mathematically because measuring the distance between two objects infinitely apart is not possible.
Are you familiar with calculus? Infinite processes can certainly convergence, and can even be rigorous proven with fundamental algebraic axioms.

>Both directed-creation and self-creation are illogical but directed creation is much less probable ie bullshit until proven otherwise.
The context I was using the word "creation" in =\= creationism. I'm referring to the fact that since an infinite causality chain is impossible, and thus some other state must have existed where items could self create, and that this current existence is a product of such a state.

If it can't be proven than it doesn't exist. Period. Modern concepts of good and evil are subjective social contructs and vary from society to society. The proper definitions are : good - helps to spread ones genes, bad - reduces probability of spreading ones genes

We also don't know that there AREN'T other actual functional universes. Simple logic dictates that only universes whose natural laws permit the formation of consciousness will get critters inside them wondering where the fuck the universe came from.

(I'm not personally convinced by multiverse theory, but 'actually there are lots of universes and we only know about the one we're in' makes more sense to me than 'we don't know how this happened therefore god'.)

They were also fine with dying in their thirties.

>since an infinite causality chain is impossible
Says who?

Until proven to exist they don't.

>We developed better theories of evolution since then.
So, you're saying you're applying Darwin's theory to your own.
Lame.

The real question is this: why are you so afraid to face the reality that is God?

>There is no rigorous evidence that everything must have a cause, especially when considering natural forces.
No, the evidence I'm presenting points to the fact that something MUST have been the product of spontaneous creation, and that, that violates our current understanding of science.
>The models only require that gravity exists at the present moment.
Factually inaccurate
>Are you familiar with calculus? Infinite processes can certainly convergence, and can even be rigorous proven with fundamental algebraic axioms.
If object A is infinite kilometers from object B, the how long will it take to travel from object A, to object B?

>The proper definitions are : good - helps to spread ones genes, bad - reduces probability of spreading ones genes
So, by your own definition, you should become a serial-rapist.

Nigga what?
Darwin was on the right track but now we have better understanding of how Evolution works.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_evolution

God of the gaps, so pathetic. And even if there is a God, its a deistic one, not some semitic fairytale

We already talked about this. Rape is not optimal because it gets you hanged.

>Wow, after dying 50 times and learning from all those deaths, it finally managed to solve the puzzle.
Too bad the real world is permadeath.

>Factually inaccurate
Elaborate. I have done numerous calculations with gravitational models, and I never assumed that gravity existed in the past. This fact cannot be mathematically or scientifically specified in our calculations.
>If object A is infinite kilometers from object B, the how long will it take to travel from object A, to object B?
An infinite distance is not logically equivalent to an infinite process.
>No, the evidence I'm presenting points to the fact that something MUST have been the product of spontaneous creation, and that, that violates our current understanding of science
Not everything is a product of spontaneous creation. Energy may be added to a system to induce a non-spontaneous reaction. Gravitational forces are not the product of a spontaneous process, and are instead always associated with any object possessing mass.

morality is described as thus: universally preferable behavior. Thats all. Cover it in flowery words or put it in a religious book, but thats what it is. Its a code so humans can live a tolerable life amongst each other

Yes 99% of all past species on Earth went extinct. It takes many one time tries to get into optimal space.