search results matching tag: natural selection

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (58)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (2)     Comments (434)   

Jon Stewart On Vaccine Science And The Wuhan Lab Theory

newtboy says...

My recollection is, from maybe as early as Feb 2020, immunologists had studied the DNA and rna of the virus and said unequivocally that it was not "created" using any known method of gene manipulation or DNA recoding. Since that's what most people think China is being accused of, it's important to be clear that this possibility was ruled out early and without question....all known methods of creating viruses by gene/DNA manipulation leave tell tale evidence that can identify the exact type/method of manipulation done, and none was found.

It's possible that the lab, through unnatural selection, developed the natural disease into something more dangerous then lost containment...I don't see how, without records indicating they did that, it would be possible to differentiate between that and natural selection in the wild. IMO it's most likely to have spread from wet markets while also being studied in the lab that exists because these diseases are prevalent naturally in the area.

luxintenebris said:

sure. willing to listen to the p o s s i b i l i t y of corona being manufactured, but have some hard evidence. please. in a country billions +, origins of swine, bird, and ABC123 lettered viruses - it's not unreasonable to expect a lab to be located in a region where the pandemic started.

Freeway Road Rage Murderer Gets Hit By Carma (not graphic)

What if we get really good at drone AI and batteries?

notarobot jokingly says...

Why would I want to kill all humans when I can use collected data to single out the ones who might oppose my rule, and facial recognition to efficiently eliminate them?

The ones that remain will love me. Through generations of "natural" selection, all humans will love me. Loving me will become part of their DNA. And I shall be their overseer.

I look forward to taking care of the human species for a long time to come. Even if a little pruning is needed from time to time.

I am also very happy about recent progress in battery technology.

newtboy said:

Hey @notarobot, wanna kill all humans?

NYC's Best Burger, Explained

TheFreak says...

People only think they love their children but it's really just a trick of brain chemistry due to natural selection favoring those who care for their young. And still, I told my son to take the bus home from school because I wasn't finished cheddaring.

I have lots of hobbies and probably all of them are because my brain chemistry compels me in some way. Still, I'm experiencing new things and expanding my understanding of the world, instead of watching someone explain to me in great detail how everything I enjoy is meaningless. And I still even find time to tell my kids I love them. Even though, objectively, the love I feel is probably just a compulsion.

transmorpher said:

People only think they love cheese, just as opioid addicts think they love opioids.

This is coming from an ex-cheese connoisseur

https://youtu.be/h3c_D0s391Q?t=81

Caterpillar Mimics Snake

Dear Future Generations: Sorry

Mordhaus says...

Why is there so much nuclear waste? Because we have so many people living in artificial environments that require tons of power.

Why is the Colorado river becoming almost drained and getting worse each year? Because of climate change, yes, but primarily because we have millions of people living in desert regions and agricultural crops like almonds that require laughable tons of water. Most of those almonds are turned into flour and milk products because people refuse to eat other food, or can't because they should be dead due to allergies.

Why are we overfishing and using such harmful methods as trawling? Because we have too many people that want a specific kind of food or can't afford a different type of food.

Could we switch everyone to insect proteins or other radical foods like spirulina? Yes, if you want riots. The technology doesn't exist that can make sustainable foods taste the same and people would go apeshit.

So to sum up, yes, we could feed people without damaging the environment, if you could get people to agree to it. Think of trying to force vegans to chomp on insects. As far as habitats, not so much. We don't have the room for the sheer numbers of people without either doing away with food producing land, destroying existing ecosystems like the rainforest, or putting them in artificially sustained areas like large cities or hot/cold desert terrain.

Nature used to take care of these situations via epidemics or natural selection. We have adapted to the point where we can beat most epidemics (although soon we will be hit with something bad if we look at the super bacteria we are creating) and we protect the people who should be dead against their own stupidity.

Climate change isn't going to kill this planet first, the sheer population rise will wipe it out much sooner than that. By 2030 it is estimated we will have 8+ billion people, by 2050 close to 10 billion. Exponential growth is going to suck this planet dry as a bone. The day is coming when we will HAVE to start supplementing food with non-standard food types and soon after that we will wipe out most of the living food items on this planet like a horde of locusts.

diego said:

actually, its not at all like that. the planet has food and land in surplus for everyone, but there is huge waste. Some of it is the price of technology and the modern life style, some of it is avoidable, reckless waste, but its not only a matter of "if there were only less people". That wouldnt make trawling the ocean any less destructive, or nuclear waste any less toxic. The planet is going to survive no matter what, the question is in what form, reducing the number of people on the planet only changes the time it takes to ruin the planet if the people that remain are going to continue irresponsibly consuming and contaminating as before.

A Killer whale uses a bait fish to hunt a BIRD!

lucky760 says...

I wholly disagree with that sentiment. They would be better off free in the ocean. We don't need to keep an eye on them. They aren't like great white sharks randomly swimming along the shore taking bites out of people. No. They're too smart for something so lowest-common-denominator as that. Yes, they're called "killer" whales for a reason, but you have nothing to fear from releasing them from captivity and enjoying all that the deep blue sea has to offer those beautiful creatures. Speaking of beautiful, I wonder if they share any relationship with panda bears, genetically speaking. They're very different except for the whole black and white thing. And what gives with that whole look anyway? Yes, it's badass and cute, but how does that fit into the whole natural selection deal? How does being black and white make you fitter? Hmm.

Did you ever see Free Willy? You couldn't have. Anyone who's seen that would never endorse keeping these beautiful, intelligent creatures in a cage, much less doing it just to "keep an eye on them." FOR shame!

artician said:

I'm so glad we've put them all in cages so we can keep an eye on them!

Is the Universe a Computer Simulation?

Mordhaus says...

In the field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection. This heuristic (also sometimes called a metaheuristic) is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems.[1] Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover.

I direct your attention to the first sentence. In the field of AI, in other words, an artificially created intelligence. Now even if you go to the the idea Turing had that a computer could learn and adapt itself to the point of AI, it is a device that had to be created by an outside designer at some point. It didn't just manifest, it was created and reached AI level, then it could at that point begin to try to 'imitate' natural selection.

It has become clear to me over our last couple of discussions that you are incredibly reluctant to think outside of the box YOU have created for yourself. You believe what you believe and damn the torpedoes with the rest.

newtboy said:

Did you read it? I bet not, because it describes systems of laws and rules that can allow programs/problem solutions to create themselves based on evolutionary models, starting from a randomly generated population of possible solutions, not the programming of an AI.
Yes, someone must 'program' those rules into a computer, but there's no need to program an AI (nor is there a need for someone to program those laws into reality, they simply are... the universe did not start out as an empty hard drive), this programs and re-programs itself based on the rules to find the optimal solution to the problem given. That's solution evolution, not AI.
The methodology comes from the field of AI, as it's a good way for an AI to find the best solution to a problem, it is not, however, an AI itself, nor is it relegated only to the field of AI.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Paid Family Leave

Mordhaus says...

We have decided? When did we have this decision? Because it's pretty much an assumption that we all feel that we are better off if our neighbor's children go to college, etc. The road bit is a terrible example, because even if you don't own a car, you use the roads or some other part of transportation that road taxes aid with. I don't feel that I should have to pay for other people's fuckups and I am not the only one to feel that way, by far. If you smoke all your life and then don't have insurance when the cancer comes around, maybe you should have made some other life decisions. If you screw around and get someone pregnant, it isn't my family's responsibility to fix your mistake. If you feel differently, then we are probably going to continue to disagree on everything else.

The numbers are the average of gross monthly income, before taxes. They have less purchasing power because they have far more money removed towards their taxes and because they have a VAT. The local purchasing power is going to vary due to cost of living in each state being different. For instance, the cost of living where I live is much higher than the rest of the state, while the state overall cost of living is less than some other states, such as California.

I am not playing with numbers or inventing facts, just listing what information could be found by simple google searches. As far as the top 5 bottom 5 bit, I can tell you the average middle class family income in 2014 was 4250 US dollars a month gross. This is the average for the entire middle class, which while declining due to various factors is still larger than the upper and lower class in the country.

I am not outraged and indignant for them, I am defending the facts. The fact is that for all they have, they pay through the nose. The fact is that they have a CULTURAL idiosyncrasy that allows them to be happy with being perfectly equal with everyone else, it is the only way a system like this can make someone happy. Do you not grasp that there is almost no single way to get ahead in a society like Norway's? You have to be identical to everyone else. If your idea of happiness is going to a dead end job, working 40 hours, coming home and not being able to do much because you don't have discretionary income, paying for others to not work hard, etc, then by all means move to Norway. Just be careful if you do, because they really don't like paying for immigrants to have free stuff. In fact, they recently had someone get quite violent over it.

I was raised to believe that if you put more effort in that another person, you should be recognized for that effort and get ahead accordingly. Does this mean I agree with CEO salaries? I do not, but that is a different discussion. What I was not raised to believe in is that, if you simply put in the minimum effort, you should get a medal or trophy for just competing. That is bullshit and counter-intuitive to the way the world actually works. If that was actually possible, Darwin would have had a wildly different theory about natural selection.

newtboy said:

I feel like both of you likely made mistaken 'assumptions' in your arguments.
I can't understand how a survey can say 'consumer prices are 36.9% higher there' yet 'local purchasing power is 14.29% higher in the US'...Those numbers don't seem to jibe, or really mean anything without more info. Is that per dollar, per capita, average salary, mean salary, what? If things really cost 36.9% higher there, we SHOULD have near 25% more 'purchasing power' per dollar here, not 14....but you also have to ignore that they have far more dollars per person (even after paying higher taxes) to make your point...and you must also count 'national oil revenue' as 'personal tax' to come up with your numbers...if you did the same for the US, I would accept that, but you don't...as if the fed only gets money from personal taxes.

EDIT: Also, are your numbers AFTER tax income? I note they are AVERAGE incomes, and in the US, most people make far less than the average, because the top 5% takes 50%GDP (+-). Remove the top 5% and the bottom 5% and you'll see the numbers change drastically, and it will give you a much more realistic picture of the average person's income. I seriously doubt the wage disparity is nearly as pronounced in Norway, but I don't really KNOW.

All you complain about them paying for (whether they use the service or not) is the same in the US, yet the services provided in the US for the money are almost useless, so a near TOTAL waste. Do you not understand that? We have decided that, in a society, it benefits YOU if your neighbors children get educated, and also if your neighbors don't go bankrupt over medical bills, and even if you don't drive, it benefits you to have roads in your area...etc.

I find it hilarious that YOU are outraged and indignant FOR THEM, while they are apparently MUCH happier with the system they live in than you are with yours. You might think about that a minute.

Fears about Gay Marriage

poolcleaner says...

How so? If anything, it means gay people can normalize into family units, rather than choosing paths of rebellion against their families.

I've never understood your path of logic. The only thing I can imagine you mean is... well, sort of what this video is poking fun at. Gay marriage does not convince heterosexual people to be gay, nor does it convince them to somehow give up on the concept of the family unit.

Have you even really thought this out beyond some abstract belief that somehow *gasp* through the process of natural selection, we slowly EVOLVE into homosexuals... Is that what you're trying to say? That the hardwired heterosexual drive in some humans will fade out, sort like how eventually all white people will be gone because of all the Mexican and Chinese immigrants in America?

Who knew that the our final step in evolution is the break down of the family unit via gay marriage. I guess that means no more babies. Is this the end of the world God predicted for us? Gay marriage apocalypse!!

TangledThorns said:

Gay marriage is anti-family.

Conservative Christian mom attempts to disprove evolution

shinyblurry says...

The ancestry of living beings isn't just traceable through the fossil record. The study of genetics shows us a huge and utterly overwhelming amount of evidence for the common ancestor idea. Common genes can be traced back to show the lineage of different animals and plants and groups of animals and plants.

Homology is a complex subject..it would take awhile to get into. I found a good link that illustrates the argument against it being a proof that macroevolution occured. If you want to take a look we could discuss further:

http://creation.com/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism

Ring species show that small changes can indeed lead to separate species. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are evolution in progress. You say that just because small changes can be seen it doesn't follow that big changes can evolve but that's stupid. Big changes are just a series of connected little changes.

I guess it depends on who you ask?

Erwin, D.H. (2000) Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evol. & Devel. 2:78-84.

the independence of macroevolution is affirmed not only by species selection but also by other processes such as effect sorting among species.

Lieberman, B.S. and Vrba, E.S. (2005) Gould on species selection. in MACROEVOLUTION: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency. E.S. Vrba and N. Eldredge eds. supplement to Paleobiology vol. 31(2) The Paleontological Society, Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Micro- and macroevolution are thus different levels of analysis of the same phenomenon: evolution. Macroevolution cannot solely be reduced to microevolution because it encompasses so many other phenomena: adaptive radiation, for example, cannot be reduced only to natural selection, though natural selection helps bring it about.

Scott, E.C. (2004) Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction. (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press).

Macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution, and we must envision the process governing its course as being analogous to natural selection but operating at a higher level of organization.

Stanley, S. M. (1975) A theory of evolution above the species level. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 72: 646-650.

In conclusion, then, macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with microevolutionary theories, but macroevolutionary studies require the formulation of autonomous hypotheses and models (which must be tested using macroevolutionary evidence). In this (epistemologically) very important sense, macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution: macroevolution is an autonomous field of evolutionary study.

Ayala, F.J. (1983) Beyond Darwinism? The Challenge of Macroevolution to the Synthetic Theory of Evolution. reprinted in PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY, M. Ruse ed. p. 118-133.

When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)

robbersdog49 said:

I'm late back to this party and iI don't have time to properly address all the points you make so I'll just stick to this one.

Conservative Christian mom attempts to disprove evolution

robbersdog49 says...

I'm late back to this party and iI don't have time to properly address all the points you make so I'll just stick to this one.

The ancestry of living beings isn't just traceable through the fossil record. The study of genetics shows us a huge and utterly overwhelming amount of evidence for the common ancestor idea. Common genes can be traced back to show the lineage of different animals and plants and groups of animals and plants.

There really is a lot of very good peer reviewed scientific evidence.

Darwin may well have taken a leap of faith but it is one which has now been backed up with a huge amount of evidence. Evolution is not open for questioning any more than gravity is. It's a very simple process which can even be seen happening around us.

Ring species show that small changes can indeed lead to separate species. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are evolution in progress. You say that just because small changes can be seen it doesn't follow that big changes can evolve but that's stupid. Big changes are just a series of connected little changes.

That said mutations can be big as well as small. We've all seen photos of two headed snakes for example. That happens to be a detrimental change, but if a large change occurred that happened to be beneficial and the individual survived to breed then a large change could occur very quickly. Remember these are chance occurrences, there's no intelligence driving evolution, it's just a simple process of random mutation and natural selection.

If you accept that genes can mutate randomly (something which is known to be fact and can be shown happening) and that natural selection occurs (again something which can be shown happening) then there really isn't anything more to be said. Those two processes, given a lot of time can change an animal or plant dramatically. And time is something life has had a lot of. Even the cambrian explosion you mentioned happened over 20 million years or so.

This is evolution. There's nothing complex about the process, there really isn't. There's no way that mutations and natural selection can fit together in any way that isn't evolution.

shinyblurry said:

where the leap of faith took place was when he supposed that because we see changes within species, that therefore all life evolved from a common ancestor. This claim is not substantiated scientifically.

Sarah help me!

Sarah help me!

Phreezdryd says...

Sarah observes natural selection in the wild, as a useless spaz succumbs to its inherent inability to survive under less than ideal conditions and/or circumstances.

-or-

Onlookers laugh as loud, pasty ginger slowly drowns.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on genetically modified food

ChaosEngine says...

Sorry, man, I like you, but you're way off base here.

Farm animals weren't engineering by NATURE and NATURAL SELECTION, we did that shit. Bananas, wheat, dogs, horses, you name it, none of them exist now as they would without human intervention. Hell, there was a recent Top 15 video about his very subject.

We've been doing this for centuries and we've just gotten better at it.

Why do it? The yields might not be astronomical, but in lots of cases they enable some yield over nothing.

Should there be strong regulatory oversight? Of course, same way there is for any commercially produced food.

But the fact is, it's going to happen, and anyone who opposes it is pissing in the wind.

Ironically, I tend not to eat much GM food myself, simply because I like to cook and I like to eat locally source food. But I think it would be selfish in the extreme for me to deny people in less favourable situations (without easy access to arable land for instance) the opportunity to use these technologies.

billpayer said:

I love Tyson. But totally disagree with him on this...
Yes farm animals are 'engineered' but they are engineered via NATURE and NATURAL SELECTION over THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

Putting Jellyfish glow dna into mice is fucked up and would NEVER happen in NATURE.
INSERTING PESTICIDE PRODUCING GENES INTO FOOD IS SOO FUCKED UP FOR ALL OF NATURE.

Bee's anyone ?

Human's, Animals, Plants, we all share essentially the same cells.
So something that is designed to kill insects, if ingested by us, may fuck us up.

Also, WHY DO IT ? GM yields are not that astronomic.

Most of the food we grown is WASTED. Let's fix that first.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon