so while procrastinating (yes, i'm honest. i should be working now) i'm watching a clip on how to stop procrastinate. is that some sort of infinite loop? am i trapped in a recursion? oh that reminds me i have to look that up. like right now

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^arghness:
>> ^BoneRemake:
That must be a GEOCache
http://www.geocaching.com/

I've never seen an indoor geocache yet, as they usually rely on GPS, at least in part. Are there any?

Your guess is as good as mine, the extent of my knowledge on the subject ends at the word Geocache.


Ah right, I've found > 170 (not bragging -- this is very few as far as geocaching goes!) and just wondered if there were indoor ones.

I think that this brick was just a bit of hidden fun. I like the recursion aspect.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'pub, weird, wall, meta, brick' to 'pub, weird, wall, meta, brick, recursive' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^cosmovitelli:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Believe it monkey boy.


Guess you missed the disclaimer: "Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor"

IE, no true ancestors..just fossils they infer to be related to the ancestors of the species..meaning, no true transitionals. Feel free to believe you're monkey spawn..i admire your religious faith in this metaphysical theory..but if you even do a modicum of investigation you'll find it's all it is..pure theory passed off as fact with absolutely no evidence.

I read Jerry Coynes refutation so you don't have to..

"The movie repeatedly hammers home the message that the sudden appearance of all “animal forms” at the Cambrian boundary contradicts evolution’s central tenet that things evolve gradually from ancestors who were different. No matter that trace fossils and some remains of animals appear before the Burgess Shale fauna, so that that fauna didn’t represent the first animal life on Earth, and no matter that the “Cambrian explosion” was not instantaneous, but lasted between 5 and 20 million years. No, the film states that the animals arose instantaneously and implies (but does not state) that this reflects God’s creation.

One, that's an outright lie. The film clearly states that best estimations are at least 5 millions years. It also states it could have happened much quicker, but it never asserts it happened instantaneously.

That there might be trace fossils and some remains of animals completely misses the point. According to darwins theory, the pre cambian should be loaded with these transitional forms leading up to the cambrian explosion. None have been found.

The movie not only claims that there were no transitional forms representing the ancestors of the Cambrian fauna, but implies that there are no transitional forms in general. That is, of course, a lie. We have transitional forms between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, land mammals to whales and seals, and so on. If sudden appearance reflects the actions of a Designer, then how do IDers explain these transitional forms? Did they — God help us — evolve?

Here is a list of the best transitional forms science has to offer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Here is the disclaimer:

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor

IE, no true transitionals have been found. IE, nothing that shows one kind of thing changing into another kind.

The "refutation" also rants about various people the author doesn't like, and speculates on their motivations. The film stands on its own as honest criticism on darwins theory. It's amusing a hardcore antitheist immediately leaps in to try to prevent people from even watching it..however, I'll give people more credit than that and say it's an interesting view no matter what side of the issue you fall on. The cambrian explosion is a mystery and cannot be explained away by darwinian theory no matter how loudly people shout and stomp their feet.

Fossils aren't rare, there are billions of them. According to darwins theory, there should be an overwhelming number of transitional fossils, but there aren't any. There is absolutely no evidence showing one kind of animal changing into another kind, period. Which is what the entire theory is based on.

"Given enough time we'll probably find one" Yeah, that's what the theory is hinged on..the faith that they exist. It's been 120 years but don't give up..we've uncovered billions of fossils but i bet thyere in there somewhere! It's a metaphysical belief and you have way more faith than I do.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Actually, you can find all the best ones here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Brace yourself for the disclaimer:
"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor" ie, no real transitions have ever been discovered..meaning evolution is a fraud
You accuse me of being blind to evidence..I just provided a mountain of evidence showing evolution to be a total fabrication..you do one google search and determine you're right..lol..pretty sad maxyboy. Shows the supreme level of ignorance im dealing with here.
>> ^MaxWilder:
I guess when you Google "transitional fossils" and see all those pages with huge lists of transitional fossils, they are all liars. But the religious people, they know science better than the scientists.
Duh, winning.


I'm glad to see that you accept that general transitional fossils exist. That is, we have many examples of fossils which demonstrated the transition from fish to amphibian, for example.
But you, like all creationists, demand more specificity. You need to see a single branch go from species A to B to C.
Here's the thing you don't seem to get, shiny. Fossils are rare. And during the process of evolution, extinct side branches are common. Well, "common" isn't exactly the right word. The branch that survives basically has to win the evolutionary lotto. So if an animal gets fossilized, it is by far more likely to come from an extinct side branch. It's simply statistics. So species A evolves into a zillion different species B, most of which are evolutionary dead ends. So to find fossil records of the exact variant of species B that fell directly between Species A (which we had a fossil) and Species C (which we had a fossil that wasn't close enough to species A to be sure about)... that's kinda like winning the lotto ten times in a row. We have plenty of them that are close. But the exact ones? You don't understand what you are asking for.
Given enough time, we'll probably find some. But they won't be proving evolution true. The Theory of Evolution is just the best explanation for the evidence we have. You can't really prove it true. The theory as it stands has made a ton of predictions that have been shown to be accurate, but none of those are "enough" for skeptics. Perhaps there is a piece of evidence which would be so bizarre that it could prove it false, but it doesn't really work the other way around. Only mathematical theorems can be "proven" true.
No, if we ever find a "true" transitional fossil as you have defined it, it will simply prove creationism false. But then again, you've never let logic or evidence dissuade you from your beliefs, so it probably wouldn't change anything.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Actually, you can find all the best ones here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Brace yourself for the disclaimer:
"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor" ie, no real transitions have ever been discovered..meaning evolution is a fraud
You accuse me of being blind to evidence..I just provided a mountain of evidence showing evolution to be a total fabrication..you do one google search and determine you're right..lol..pretty sad maxyboy. Shows the supreme level of ignorance im dealing with here.
>> ^MaxWilder:
I guess when you Google "transitional fossils" and see all those pages with huge lists of transitional fossils, they are all liars. But the religious people, they know science better than the scientists.
Duh, winning.



I'm glad to see that you accept that general transitional fossils exist. That is, we have many examples of fossils which demonstrated the transition from fish to amphibian, for example.

But you, like all creationists, demand more specificity. You need to see a single branch go from species A to B to C.

Here's the thing you don't seem to get, shiny. Fossils are rare. And during the process of evolution, extinct side branches are common. Well, "common" isn't exactly the right word. The branch that survives basically has to win the evolutionary lotto. So if an animal gets fossilized, it is by far more likely to come from an extinct side branch. It's simply statistics. So species A evolves into a zillion different species B, most of which are evolutionary dead ends. So to find fossil records of the exact variant of species B that fell directly between Species A (which we had a fossil) and Species C (which we had a fossil that wasn't close enough to species A to be sure about)... that's kinda like winning the lotto ten times in a row. We have plenty of them that are close. But the exact ones? You don't understand what you are asking for.

Given enough time, we'll probably find some. But they won't be proving evolution true. The Theory of Evolution is just the best explanation for the evidence we have. You can't really prove it true. The theory as it stands has made a ton of predictions that have been shown to be accurate, but none of those are "enough" for skeptics. Perhaps there is a piece of evidence which would be so bizarre that it could prove it false, but it doesn't really work the other way around. Only mathematical theorems can be "proven" true.

No, if we ever find a "true" transitional fossil as you have defined it, it will simply prove creationism false. But then again, you've never let logic or evidence dissuade you from your beliefs, so it probably wouldn't change anything.

Actually, you can find all the best ones here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Brace yourself for the disclaimer:

"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor" ie, no real transitions have ever been discovered..meaning evolution is a fraud

You accuse me of being blind to evidence..I just provided a mountain of evidence showing evolution to be a total fabrication..you do one google search and determine you're right..lol..pretty sad maxyboy. Shows the supreme level of ignorance im dealing with here.

>> ^MaxWilder:
I guess when you Google "transitional fossils" and see all those pages with huge lists of transitional fossils, they are all liars. But the religious people, they know science better than the scientists.
Duh, winning.

It's amusing that no one here can actually just present their views without acting all incredulous "OMG I CANT BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE OMG UR SO DUMB OMG!!!" How about you just let your logic speak for itself. If you want to talk about intelligence, I scored 149 on my last IQ test..how about you? You science worshippers are more dogmatic and sensitive than any religious person I know, and that's the truth.

You can repeat something is true over and over again, as forcefully and dramatically as you want..there are no, and I repeat ZERO true transitionals. Yes of course every fossil is a transitional by definition..lol..but we're talking about actual records showing a change in kind to another kind. There aren't any. Here is a list of all the best ones science has found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

And here is the disclaimer:

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor

Read that a few times and let it sink in. None have ever been found, those are all extinct side branches, not true transitionals. Why don't you get a background and know you're talking about before you try to get into a debate with someone, let alone imply they themselves are ignorant.


>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^shinyblurry:
And of course there is the embarassment of not having any true transitional forms..which should be abundent by now I would think.

Oh god.
Every animal and every fossil there ever was, is, and ever will be, IS a transitional form, by definition. If we limit ourselves to the human/homo linaege , please check out a video I recently posted about human evolution: http://videosift.com/video/Human-Evolution-and-Why-it-matters
If you watch that video, you will see how scientists are working to piece togheter a very large number of hominids with a large variety. its not like "Apes turned into human" in some neat movie-style morph, but a complex mess up populations of gradually more humanoid apes, the large majority of which formed long lineages that lived for thousands of years, before joining the vast collection of extinct species. Its become increasingly clear that we are one of many branches, and the last surviving in the hominid group so far.
The "no transitional fossils" is a laughable strawman argument, deeply ignorant and dishonest at the same time, in other words, typical creationist nonsense.
As for Irreducible complexity, , this is the most "sciencey" of the creationist drivel out there, but its still drivel. It's not even bad science, its just meaningless white noise designed to baffle people who has no knowledge of biology.

I'm not sure how you see yourself as any less dogmatic than I am..and Im sorry for making you sad. I hope that you haven't wasted too many kleenexs on me, but save them for yourself..you'll need them when you figure out evolution is wrong.

Here is the key portion of your wiki article:

"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor"

What we see in the fossil record is that when something new shows up its all at once and is fully formed and then never changes. Ie, no true transitionals have ever been discovered. What has never been witnessed in the fossil record is steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different.

You think this is a gap? It's a super massive black hole, and the vacuum may be in your head if you believe it. Here's some info:

John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.

The blank spots on evolutionary "tree" charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin's theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, for example. "Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "They are here today; they have no yesterday." The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were.

I think you're the one who needs to re-evaluate your beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6EiN-3uWak




>> ^Skeeve:
>> ^shinyblurry:
the bar is still incredibly low..one of the best transitional forms out there is based on a whales nostril..i would find that embarassing if i believed in evolution. show me something convincing. also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
You've said that you aren't ignorant of science, yet you ignore the science that proves these things. You, and people like you, are not really interested in the facts, you are interested in finding all the gaps so you can point and say "aha, there is a god!" I am truly saddened by people like you - it breaks my heart that you can be so smart and so blind at the same time.
But you asked for yet more proof so I am at your service.
A (comparatively) short list of transitional forms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
As for the claim that mutations not increasing information in a genome:
"We have observed the evolution of
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."
You can look up those scholarly articles if you actually don't want to remain ignorant. They are listed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Imagine a universe that lasts of only 10 seconds and only has one particle in it. Lets call the end of time X. At X - .99999999999999999999999, we send the particle back to T = 1. At T= 1, we now have 2 particles. At T = 1, we send both particles back to X - .99999999999999999999999. We do this again, and again until we create a universe of infinite density from one particle. I don't know if this is exactly the time of feedback they are talking about, it is from my own thought experiment on time travel.
>> ^Payback:

>> ^jmd:
The whole feedback thing was really interesting though, the reason we can see through the portals is because light radiation is streaming through the portal to our eyes. If you stuck a portal infront of you and then a portal behind you, light radiation would stream in and out of the portals into an infinite feedback loop causing catastrophic energy output.

Why would that happen? You're not creating more sources. It would be the same net effect as pointing two mirrors at each other. Only instead of light bouncing off and heading back, the light stops being in front, and then appears behind.
Light passing through recursive portals would end up collimated, but I can't see how it would multiply, as the light coming out of portal a is disappearing into portal b at the same rate.
Personally, I was kinda let down that the portal system didn't really change, they just added magic goo. I was TOTALLY expecting PortalGun 2.0 to create bi-directional portals, that is, you would exit one side or the other of portal b, depending on what side you entered portal a. True non-euclidean physics. Also, did Valve ever describe the portals as worm holes? I always thought they were quantum teleporters or something to do with nth dimension physics.

>> ^jmd:

The whole feedback thing was really interesting though, the reason we can see through the portals is because light radiation is streaming through the portal to our eyes. If you stuck a portal infront of you and then a portal behind you, light radiation would stream in and out of the portals into an infinite feedback loop causing catastrophic energy output.


Why would that happen? You're not creating more sources. It would be the same net effect as pointing two mirrors at each other. Only instead of light bouncing off and heading back, the light stops being in front, and then appears behind.

Light passing through recursive portals would end up collimated, but I can't see how it would multiply, as the light coming out of portal a is disappearing into portal b at the same rate (and vice versa).

Personally, I was kinda let down that the portal system didn't really change, they just added magic goo. I was TOTALLY expecting PortalGun 2.0 to create bi-directional portals, that is, you would exit one side or the other of portal b, depending on what side you entered portal a. True non-euclidean physics. Also, did Valve ever describe the portals as worm holes? I always thought they were quantum teleporters or something to do with nth dimension physics.

My answer would be to ask the interviewer the same question, because recursive loops are awesome.

The thing to rmeber is that the EXE might be 4KB but when its run it exspands quite a bit due to recursive math .

its analagouse to if i had a slip of paper with a mandalbot equation on it , and how if procsessed it repatedly it could equal all the data in the universe and exspand on it .

And I upvoted...

oh hell, never mind. Too tired to link obvious recursive programming loop joke to a sifted video that's set in a computer.