Elysian Shadows

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

This creator of this video has deconstructed the popular "Watchmaker" argument in this video. He has simulated watches as living organisms and made an evolution program simulation to prove the plausibility of evolution. I think it is a good watch and amazing watching the watches taking their evolutionary stages and transformations. Responses anyone?

Also I like that song. Can someone tell me the name of it?

I have seen that, its pretty nice :D

He has also made a video where the organisems are black/white pictures, i made a program like that for a school project :D

Marx Chaotix wrote:Also I like that song. Can someone tell me the name of it?

Clocks by Coldplay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI1FpLd4Vk

Quite appropriate for his video actually.

Thanks! DandyMcgee! *goes to download*

i am sorry, but this is one of the poorest attempts of doing anything i have ever seen.
has anyone actually looked at the source. i find it insulting that this person believes he can prove evolution in a mere 100 or so lines of his own code, based on god knows what. (i didnt see any genetic algorithms to the extent of whats available today)

its an interesting video, but about as factual as al gore.

avansc wrote:i am sorry, but this is one of the poorest attempts of doing anything i have ever seen.
has anyone actually looked at the source.

What the heck did he write it in.. they were .m files (I didn't open them).

avansc wrote:its an interesting video, but about as factual as al gore.

I think .m is matlab filetype.

avansc wrote:its an interesting video, but about as factual as al gore.

Well Al Gore is a fact (I mean he exists and all). So.. you mean you believe this video entirely? oh.. cool!

JS Lemming wrote:I think .m is matlab filetype.

I thought that, too, but I guess it could also be managed C.

avansc wrote:...based on god knows what...

Well.. He did have all the basic notions of evolutions in his code -
He had a kind of a genome that contained a fixed number of elements, with varying attributes and varying connections between them. Evolution was produced by mating between 2 random "better" clock (think of it as a group of 3 tigers in the wild.. 1 woman 2 men, the woman will mate with the one who has the best chance to survive), they produced a mutated offspring. The survival (and therefor the mating) was decided by the world (think of it as the tiger mating with the one that has the best chance to catch pray).

The clocks didn't have a set "GOAL", rather, they wanted to mate with the ones that will survive better, out of a random pool.

So.. based on evolution principles i would say.

What we was trying was not to prove evolution all together, but to disprove the claim (many anti-evolutionists have) that even a clock is a system too complex to be created by evolution.. And he proved, using the basic concepts of evolution, that a clock CAN be evolved out of the parts making it, without a final goal.

kostiak2 wrote:

avansc wrote:...based on god knows what...

Well.. He did have all the basic notions of evolutions in his code -
He had a kind of a genome that contained a fixed number of elements, with varying attributes and varying connections between them. Evolution was produced by mating between 2 random "better" clock (think of it as a group of 3 tigers in the wild.. 1 woman 2 men, the woman will mate with the one who has the best chance to survive), they produced a mutated offspring. The survival (and therefor the mating) was decided by the world (think of it as the tiger mating with the one that has the best chance to catch pray).

The clocks didn't have a set "GOAL", rather, they wanted to mate with the ones that will survive better, out of a random pool.

So.. based on evolution principles i would say.

What we was trying was not to prove evolution all together, but to disprove the claim (many anti-evolutionists have) that even a clock is a system too complex to be created by evolution.. And he proved, using the basic concepts of evolution, that a clock CAN be evolved out of the parts making it, without a final goal.

he proved no such thing. he made a program that can... do you think the first time he ran it it work like clock wotk. no pun intended, no, he made changed till it worked like he wanted it to.

Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection (Complex Adaptive Systems) is one of the best sources of genetic programming but yet does not claim any ludicris statements like this.

unfortuanatly there is no way to prove ID is not true, and no way to prove that Evolution is not true.

and by the way, you cant prove something is not true by using a teory thats not been proven.

also you seem to be a little shit with your al gore statements. i know you knew that i was refering to his agendas. so please dont be a fucking wise guy.


OH and please point out the code that is based on biology. an one simple mating mutation does not constitute all of evolution

Sorry If I insulted you.

About what you said - he addresses 90% of your counter arguments in the beggining of the video, so i'll just shot up.

Other than that you claim he cheated ("rigged" it till it worked right) well i can't argue here either, I don't know.. maybe he did, maybe he didn't (I just assumed, for the sake of argument that he didn't cheat)

About the al gore thing, I was joking! did I forget my <sarcasm> tags again?

Even if it was real -- how did he determine which ones survived better? Which ones are "stronger"? More accurate to Earth seconds/minutes/hours/days? Measures seconds/minutes/hours/days in general? Closest to measuring seconds/minutes/hours/days? That seems like a goal to me!

MarauderIIC wrote:Even if it was real -- how did he determine which ones survived better? Which ones are "stronger"? More accurate to Earth seconds/minutes/hours/days? Measures seconds/minutes/hours/days in general? Closest to measuring seconds/minutes/hours/days? That seems like a goal to me!

It comes down to deffinition on this one - Is it a "goal" for a single celled amoeba to survive? It's dictated by the environment, so it's not the goal of the amoeba..

ps. I'm not sure how he determined exactly which one tells time better, but I assumed (again.. for the sake of argument) he didn't cheat, and made that decision separate from any evolution code (ie. just in the code that determined who survived)

Sure, a goal can be survival, but with survival, Other things will eat it or kill it. In an environment without the external influences of predators or natural hazards, how is survival determined? What natural hazard would kill a clock that has 12,000 hands and 4 gears?