[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 66 KB, 1600x802, idiot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12372207 No.12372207 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]


Well, /sci/?

>> No.12372329


>> No.12372357

>absence of evidence is evidence of absence except in the case of God

I refuse to continue watching this hogwash. also anthropologists are literally retards that should be euthanized.

>> No.12372443

prager u is genuine propaganda

>> No.12372463

ffs. or certain forms are favorable because of the fitness landscape. this is no doubt to evolution. btw trump won. and goldwater was right.

>> No.12372471

Who the fuck pays for this subversion?
Isn't there literally an evolution algorithm for machine learning?
Also dna is extremely complex. There is lots of repeating parts just in case it gets fucked up. Also there are repair structures. And apoptosis in cells that are seriously fucked up.
And even on the higher end with chromosomes, two gametes will swap parts of chromosomes and even small random parts.
this also causes fucked up shit like stuff as bad as hox gene mutuatIons where you end uo with a fucked up fetus.
Biological structures are a little more complicated than shitting random code into your hell world python program.
Also how random?
I mean just an orgy of zero and ones he's right will infinitely more times not produce an intelligent structure, because we make that structure. However, comparing shifting machine code to DNA is retards. A better comparison would be shifting machine code is like zero sum quantum fluxes that made the universe or whatever these schizo physicists say happened.
And shifting random logic gates would be more like shifting random atoms and making molecules.
then shifting random molecules to make a structure would be like making a structure.
Programs have grammar so when you shift it you shift it according to it's grammar structure.
This guy is literally stupid, ignorant, and insane.

>> No.12372484

based, macroevolution is pseudoscience garbage. literally unfalsifiable and can never be replicated within a realistic time frame

>> No.12372500

It's propaganda funded by billionares. It's pretty easy to follow the money if you're willing to do a bit of research, but the TL;DR is that it's obviously false and misleading information intended to garner public support for the things billionaires want and/or create wedge issues as political smoke and mirrors. It's honestly a mistake to assume that somebody in a Prager Poo video even believes what they say. They are just a mouthpiece to give the script passed down from the top some air of legitimacy.

>> No.12372507

PhD scientists completely btfo'ing midwits who are easily influenced and can't be critical of anything mainstream science says

it's another one of those "end of spectrums retards and geniuses against midwits" cases

>> No.12372529

So it's just to polarize Americans?
What do they get out of doing that?
Also how do I do the research?
I've been compiling a list a richest Americans and I was going to create profiles for them, organize them on who is the richest, why they are rich, their ethnicities, their religion, and what they control.
I'm using the Forbes 400 data for their names.

>> No.12372533

>eyes visibly moving left to right
I don't understand this. How hard can it be to recite a five minute script? They don't mind being paid shills but somehow putting in a little effort is crossing a line.

>> No.12372545

>So it's just to polarize Americans?
Basically. There's other political agendas, but for the most part it's making the people who don't even know how to properly fact check something feel like they're correct, informed, and intelligent. That base supports all kinds of toxic political mechanisms, so having them continue to have faith in what they believe is important.
>Also how do I do the research?
Typing "prager u funding" is a good start.

>> No.12372547

typing it in to google*
fuck it's embarrassing to typo when you're trying to be snarky

>> No.12372549

Even if that were true, there’s a fuckton of other reasons why it’s to be preferred over literally any alternative you can think of.

>> No.12372560

>trying to be snarky
Weird I thought your were trying to be helpful.
>Much of the early funding for PragerU came from hydraulic fracturing (fracking) billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks. Two members of the Wilks family are on PragerU's board. The next-largest donor is the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.
- ((Goo))gle

>> No.12372594

>- ((Goo))gle
What's with the parentheses?

>> No.12372631

They are paid shills, but they don't get paid as much as you think. They don't want to waste any more time than they have to doing this stupid PragerU video, so they just show up and read their lines.

>> No.12372632

He's a Nazi, but he thinks he will get banned if he calls it Jewgle.

>> No.12372634

This. Reciting a 5 minute long script requires more effort than you give credit for and its literally cheaper to read it at the time of recording.

>> No.12372639

OP, if you wanted to post a funny PragerU vid, you should have gone all the way. Four Big Bangs is the crowning jewel of Prager stupidity.


>> No.12372640

Even /pol/ craps on Prager U.

>> No.12372642

Simulation Theory is a better explanation simply because it is more fun.

>> No.12372735


>> No.12373288

Fuck me. Prageru has 2.8 million subscribers and over 1 billion views. No wonder a lot of the burgers here are so misinformed.

>> No.12373300

Because I'm trying to throw the masons off my trail by pretending I'm blaming everything on zog.
lol stupid masons.
This guy gets it.

>> No.12373327

It's not wrong to think about those ideas. The problem is just that most people never had a logic crash course and jump from believing one concept to believing another simply because they've seen a video about it or there's a meme about it.

>> No.12373345

The US is very easy at being subverted.
Honestly I was at first blaming ZOG, then the Masons, but It might be the ZOG working under the Masons who are working with the Chinese.
Probably definitely the Russians too.

>> No.12373352


>> No.12373386

I also think it's sometimes an understandable reaction from people who didn't learn much in school, either because they were taught poorly or they didn't pay attention or both. If you come out of high school feeling like science, history, math, or whatever is just a bunch of disjoint facts to memorize, then you have no good reason to trust them. How do we know that humans are apes or the Earth is round or the Middle Ages even happened? Just because someone told us? I imagine someone who is already skeptical, who then gets told a lot of things in school with no satisfactory explanations (or who couldn't understand the explanations), and who then grows up and reads media filled with constant news about politicians and other figures lying. It's easy to see how they would see some facile video from PragerU more convincing than a more detailed explanation from real scientists. Because real science is just some confusing jumble of ideas that seem to be passed down from authorities anyway. At least the facile explanation is simple.

>> No.12373445

I guess they are valid criticisms if they actually hold out. I don't know enough about chemistry or DNA to confirm nor deny. cbf validating his claims.
evolutionary algorithms (yes, plural) are not actually modifying the code itself though. There is a concept called evolutionary programming where you are modifying a tree of operators and inputs to achieve an optimum function, but you can't just apply random mutations to the operators or inputs otherwise the function will be completely random.
So I guess his computer code analogy holds up if his premise about DNA is correct.

>> No.12373483

>some schmuck with a PhD
>bacteria and beethoven
>"discovery institute", like the term "science research institute" was already taken
>senile fellow
i smell pseud bullshit in the air

>> No.12373502

Yeah but making the claim someone's a pseud without correctly researching their claims makes you a pseud

>> No.12373523
File: 260 KB, 475x462, kek006.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>claim someone's a pseud without correctly researching their claims makes you a pseud
this isnt reddit, where you need verifiable proof when stating an opinion

anyways, from his wikipedia page:
>B.S. (bull shit) degrees in physics and earth science in 1981
>History and Philosophy of Science (meme) at Cambridge University
>1990 dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies." (meme topic from a non scientist)
9 years for a diss? embarrassing
he didnt do any research, just had a little philosophical fart sniffing session and then got a PhD for it.
as an engineer is spit in the face of these "scientists" who likely live in the illusion that there is any merit to these wanksessions that any non MINTs call "research"

from stephencmeyer.org, his website
>stephen meyer, philosopher of science
>"philosopher of science"
>"philosopher of science"
joke of the century

i called this dude a pseud, and look, he is
what a surpise

>> No.12373527

It's more a fart sniffer than you will ever be and he gets paid to do it

>> No.12373532

>It's more a fart sniffer than you will ever be
>and he gets paid to do it
true, i dont, but i also dont sniff farts

we are arguing about the integrity of the person linked in OP, why are you trying to talk about me, some random anonymous dude
almost seems like you are trying to move the goalpost or defend the pseud

>> No.12373539

Are we?
>defend fart sniffing
People can sniff farts if they want to.

>> No.12373546

seems like preggersU is quite redpilled to some extent
just the first few gems that fall into the eye
>Are we
apparently not
>People can sniff farts if they want to
sure, this still means they dont have integrity to make claims
the dude is not a scientist or does anything that can be classified as research
it would be misleading to put the seal of approval and legitimation on this quack, because he has a PhD

>> No.12373549

>He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI),[1] which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement
>intelligent design
I mean

>> No.12373554

I have never heard of this preggersU.
Isn't preggers supposed to mean someone that is pregnant?
seems like a meme to me

>> No.12373555

>intelligent design
meme marketing language buzzwords
imagine if you scrolled the page and find the parts where he talks about machine learning, internet of things or similar meme phrases

>> No.12373558

were you trying to make a point?

>> No.12373560

what's your point

>> No.12373568

why does everything have to be about points and arguments with you. are you so autistic that you can't just make regular talk.

>> No.12373578

for an autistic person it can be difficult to grasp the meta message and follow conversations
in more concise words:
the actively displayed symbolism in language is a cope for lack of substance, this reinforces the notion of pseud that was already voiced
>why does everything have to be about points and arguments
>just make regular talk
you are on the science board of an anonymous hamster wrestling symposium
if you do not appreciate discourse and discussion of that kind then i suggest you go to a place that is more appropriate to your mental frame

>> No.12373583

What's a mental frame?

>> No.12373599

In an evolutionary algorithm, the input goes through a series of linear transformations with coefficients called weights and constant terms called biases. They are initially random, and in each "generation," the individuals with the highest utility "breed" and produce the next generation, which has small random changes to those weights and biases. And the process repeats. It is functionally identical to natural selection, and it works for exactly the same reason.

>> No.12373602

I was just curious when they say something stupid to make me dislike vid. It was when it spread misinformation about evolution being used as origin of life by science

>> No.12373605

>reddit, where you need verifiable proof when stating an opinion

>> No.12373639

Yes i know. You are not modifying the code in this, you are modifying the data. Your extra bit of information really just clarifies what an evolutionary algorithm is, it does not invalidate what I said.
We were talking about the code analogy in the video. An evolutionary algorithm does not apply random changes to the actual code.

>functionally identical
Only in theory and It's not identical.
When you actually apply an evolutionary algorithm to a specific problem, it will not follow the exact concept of natural selection.
There are also more than one way to create an evolutionary algorithm. For example;
Chromosome gene encoding will vary depending on the problem. I used a node of a pathway to represent a gene, and the combination to represent the chromosome. You can however, use a string or perhaps even a hash to represent a combination, provided you can decode to mean something related to your (probably) network.
Fitness tests are pretty standard, it will probably be some ratio out of 1. But you may decide that it means more sense to rank your score closer to 0 if you're trying to find the shortest of something.
Selection process can be different, depending on what you want to do (there are some algorithms that people have tried that work). You may not want to ALWAYS bread the two most highly scoring parents together as they might have genes that would have different impacts on their fitness score. You can have some sort of identifier to keep track of lineages, which means that you can keep track of which genes are good or bad over time, but this is only applicable to certain problems.
The breading, or crossing over of the parents can be done a couple of ways. I'm not really sure what the best way is or what the difference is, but I know that we had different values for which I could tune how much of the parents I was crossing over. Because we had a variably sized problem, I made the cross over some function of the size of the chromosome. (continued)

>> No.12373654

Once you bread or cross over the parents, in my method, you had to resolve the missing and repeated genes. Once this was fixed, a certain amount of mutation might be applied, which could be adjusted, as well as the chance of that mutation occurring.
Lastly the children are fed back into the algorithm for another round.

I could adjust, population size, iteration size, mutation chance, mutation amount, cross over radio.
It would lastly spit out a graph, so that I know it worked.

>> No.12373659

My point being, this is not what occurs in nature. There are no dials or changing the behavior.
So therefore when people tell me that evolutionary algorithms are the same as what occurs in nature, I call bullshit.

>> No.12373693

>You are not modifying the code in this, you are modifying the data
The entire code is just putting the data through linear transformations. Like, if you were trying to code a program to recognize handwriting in this way, you wouldn't start out by writing code to recognize each of the letters and then refine it over time. You would start with *completely random guessing* and use the selection mechanism to repeatedly improve the results.

It doesn't have to be an analogy designed for biology. It's designed for the task at hand. The point is that they are broadly applicable, as you would expect them to be, because the principle they operate under is very broad and very simple.

>> No.12373705

>There are no dials or changing the behavior.
wtf are you talking about? The "dials" are the genes. I don't know why you went through all this trouble talking about sex and shit, it's missing the point. Natural selection does not require sex. It just requires inheritance, and that some combinations of traits are more likely to be inherited than others.

>> No.12373727

Cheks out. All he's saying is that redditors who subscribe to I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE should stop blindly sucking the dick of anyone who says evolution and instead investigate the deep holes still in the theory. If you really believe then become a biologist yourself and start finding answers and solutions. Otherwise shut the fuck up, seethe and dilate.

>> No.12373728

I agree with you?
Someone's point was that a evolutionary algorithm modifies code and hence that invalidates the point in the video about code having random modifications doesn't work.

Yes I know that's what natural selection requires, the whole point of the rant was to demonstrate that the claim, evolutionary algorithms does the same thing nature does for natural selection, is incorrect.

>> No.12373748

So is anyone going to address his arguments? I remember watching his discussion on the Hoover Institute with a mathematician and some computer science professor at Yale. It goes into these arguments in more detail. I think the point about the search space being too large is valid (10^77 is ridiculously large) and verifiable. People in the YouTube comments and here don’t seem to get that he is also referring to a specific period in time, the Cambrian explosion, which is inconsistent with our understanding of evolution. Personally, I don’t think you can make the logical jump to creationism just based on the fact that the probability of DNA that yields useful proteins happens to be extremely low. I think what’s more likely is that we need to extend our understanding of evolution to lower levels of abstraction, perhaps down to the chemical and physical level, to account for the selection of DNA for stable proteins. Just an intuition at this point. I think concepts that can be found on multiple layers of the abstraction stack may be fundamental to nature. Evolution is just as evident in biology as it is in markets. Entropy as the propensity of a system towards disorder is also abundant outside of the realm of thermodynamics and computation may or not be fundamental to our universe etc.

>> No.12373766


Like I don't even know how you think this conversation went. Training an algorithm is the same thing as biological evolution. In both cases, the code and the data are the same thing. Changing the weights or changing genes changes what the artificial or biological code does. It is exactly an analogous process. I can't understand what your complaint is here.

In biological evolution, you have some population of organisms with traits determined by genes, some individuals in that population reproduce more than others due to being better adapted to their environment, and these genes get passed on more. The result is a better-adapted population. In the evolution of an algorithm, you have some population of algorithms with traits determined by the weights and biases of their neurons. Some individuals in that population reproduce more than others due to returning a higher value from the utility function, and their parameters get passed on more. The result is a population with a higher utility.

How could this even fail to work?

>> No.12373813

>Training an algorithm is the same thing as biological evolution
No it isn't in practice
>exactly an analogous process
Not exactly. It's not an exact analogy.

Sure I can see this from your perspective of just thinking about the concept of an evolutionary algorithm and comparing it to nature.
But when you apply the concept to an actual problem, or implement it onto a computer, the operations and output is not the same thing as what is occurring in nature.
That has nothing to do with evolutionary algorithms. You're thinking of situation that has a neural network and an evolutionary algorithm to keep improving the weights in the network.

Evolutionary algorithms work I don't doubt that. But they do not exactly mirror what occurs in nature, or rather no one can say with certainly that they do or don't.
Evolutionary algorithms are created with the idea of natural selection, but are not exactly what occurs in nature in practice.

>> No.12373883

Obviously they aren't "exactly what happens" in nature, but they operate on exactly the same principle. And indeed, we do observe this happening in nature, especially in populations with short generation times or that are artificially selected by humans.

>> No.12373907

Yeah. So we agree then.
Not sure if I'm replying to the same person.

>> No.12374010

By that logic random noise theory is the best theory, and you cannot know nuffin.

>> No.12374277

I don’t see the point of the 10^77 search space argument. I’ve only watched this video though, not the other one you refer to. Saying that you have 10^77 theoretical nonfunctional sequences given some protein does not say anything directly about how many functional sequences you actually have for a given protein. Don’t we expect natural selection to drastically reduce the search space anyways? If given some random DNA protein-coding sequence (from a real organism), it’s difficult to create a single point mutation that would substantially change protein function.

>> No.12374279

Some comments have already mentioned the DNA stuff but I’m pretty sure it’s widely accepted that the reason so many organisms show up in the Cambrian Explosion is simply because bones must have evolved at that point, allowing for the organisms to be fossilized more easily than ever before.

>> No.12374285

Is is 2008 again?

>> No.12374287

hard pass

>> No.12375492


>> No.12375505

I’d take Creationism debates over the shit that’s been going on on /sci/ over the last 5 years.

>> No.12375529


I like how the dude in the video just handwaves over 10 million years like it's nothing. That's A LOT of time for evolution to happen. Hell this is been going on for like what, over 500 million years at this point? I don't really understand the point he's trying to make other than "we don't know how this happened". Unless it's an arguement for "we don't know how this happened, therefore god" which is an equally shit argument.

>> No.12375642

>Yes i know. You are not modifying the code in this, you are modifying the data.
Neither does evolution in nature the code is the underlying physics and the DNA is the data to be run.

>> No.12375886

I don't think bones evolved in the Cambrian, but shells did, as did other arthropod exoskeletons made of (for instance) chitin. There were some small fish or fishlike animals in the Cambrian with rudimentary vertebrae, but they weren't made of bone mineral. True bones evolved in the Ordivician.

Actually, the Cambrian explosion was not as fast as Creationists make it out to be. They act like all modern forms evolved in a great big poof. Actually, primitive varieties of most modern *phyla* emerged over the course of around 20 million years, though you are right that some probably predated the Cambrian and just can't be observed in the fossil record due to their soft bodies.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.