Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell" channel.

  1. MagicLink43: As selfish as humans inherently are, we also developed certain survival traits that have helped us live and interact with others. We have compassion and empathy...or at least the vast majority of us do. There is only about 1% of the human population that are psychopathic by nature, which just means they lack empathy or at least they lack it to the normal extent...but you most likely have empathy and so do most of the people around you, so we all know that we do better when we're not fucking with each other in violent or cruel ways. Doesn't stop us completely, but it does more then you think it does to hinder our more selfish urges. Look into Ayn Rand as well. She was a writer and philosopher who believed it was morally right to be remain as selfish as possible. She argued it was the best thing about you and me and it should be cultivated not shunned. A good example she used, was her husband. Selfishness is defined as looking out for ones self interests, but she noticed that it was more in her self interest to nurture her relationship with her husband as best she could, then it was to ignore him or abuse him in anyway. If he was happy, then it would help her as well to be happy, it brought her selfish joy to see her husband happy. Most would look at that as being Selfless, but she said it was more selfish, because in the end...she was doing it more for her own self interests then for his. But it didn't matter, because it was that selfishness that helped them both live very happy lives. Now, I don't agree with everything she said myself, because unfortunately greedy capitalistic wall street types twist her words and use them to justify all kinds of shitty deeds...but she did have some interesting outside the box ways of looking at the problem of selfishness. So ya, hope that helps ya. ^_^
    2
  2. Faze Rug: It is funny, but it works. Birds do have very similar bone structures to dinosaurs, which is why we suggest they may have evolved from them. Of course it's odd to imagine something as powerful and impressive as a T-Rex evolving into a chicken, but it is plausible. We took the Wolf and turned it into a Chihuahua in just a few hundred years...imagine what we could do in a few million years. The T-Rex was massive, requiring a lot of food to maintain itself and survive. When that food started becoming scarce due to a major shift in habitat, the T-Rex had to either adapt or die. The best way to adapt to such a change, shrink in size and require less food. Now, nobody is actually saying the T-Rex itself became a chicken, from what I understand the extinction of the dinosaurs happened quite abruptly, so the line of most larger species such as T-Rex likely died out, but there were smaller dinosaurs that could have survived that event and they could have evolved to create the chicken. Laugh at the idea all ya want, it is plausible. All we're saying in that case is that the Chicken has a much closer relation to Dinosaurs than we do. We all share a common ancestor, but the Chicken doesn't have to go back nearly as far as we do, to have a common ancestor with the Dinos. You're gravely misunderstanding how evolution works, if you think the T-Rex just magically became a chicken over night.
    2
  3. chazz LUCAS: Science is doing more to shrink the idea of a God, then it is doing to disprove Evolution. You're making a lot of bold claims here, based from what I can only assume was a very poor education and a lot of YouTube videos. There are transitional fossils, but of course there will always be gaps because fossils are not easy to make. It takes very precise conditions for a fossil to be preserved, so not every single species in existence is going to have a fossil record....which is really to bad, cause it certainly would help to shut you people up. Animals really only see large changes in their DNA when their environment forces them to adapt or die. It's the environment that determines a species traits and characteristics and if that environment rarely ever changes....then you're not going to see many changes in it's evolution. Furthermore, Evolution is a very slow gradual process...so no, we're not going to see new species popping up every single time we plant a flower, because a completely new species takes thousands to millions of years to create. How much do you actually know about DNA? DNA does sometimes replicate itself and then mutate on that new duplicate chain, causing additions in it's code. This happens all the time, and scientists know this, because this is something you can actually observe happening, if you're lucky enough to be looking in the right place at the right time, while watching a cell splitting under a microscope. So yes, DNA does sometimes add to itself...of course you're not going to get a cat changing into a dog or a kangaroo...but you will get a cat with longer ears, green eyes, longer claws, etc. Little minute changes like that, that over enough time and enough new generations, can add up and eventually....create a completely new species. DNA never does this duplication on the entire chain of DNA, only in very small chunks at a time. This is why we'll never see a dog give birth to a kangaroo or anything else really...except for maybe a dog with a mutation that could possibly wind up aiding in its survival, thus ensuring the probability of that new trait being passed on for future generations. Not sure what you're talking about in your third point there...might have just worded it oddly. I'll take a stab in the dark anyway though. I think what you're getting at is that animals are born and created from genes and DNA and without this very precise blueprint of information they cannot form. Yes, that's true....but I'm not sure how that disproves evolution in anyway. These codes are not perfect, there is room for errors and it is those errors that create new traits. I think where people like you get caught up, is that you assume the system is perfect because it works flawlessly without errors....what we KNOW now is that it is perfect because it is flawed. Because these chains of DNA allow for small errors to occur once in awhile without breaking the original design. It is because of these small errors that the system works so well. The flaws are what make it a perfect system. Without random errors and flaws occurring once in awhile, the possibility for a species to adapt to sudden changes in its environment, grinds to a halt, and life would not be able to survive at all. Evolution never ends, it's life's best survival mechanism so that it can grow, change and adapt to a world that is always shifting and changing as well. Without evolution, life would have died out a very long time ago. I'd suggest looking into Abiogenesis as well, if you think life can't come from inorganic matter. This relatively new field of research has done many experiments already proving that it is possible for life to create itself through naturally occurring chemical reactions, under the right conditions. Give it a little while, and it'll soon be called the Theory of Abiogenesis, meaning it'll have just as much solid backing as Evolution does today.
    1
  4. Cool, I remember reading this short story awhile ago and I see it pop up from time to time on social media since then, never thought I'd see it animated though, certainly not from Kurzgesagt. xD Kinda neat, should do more stuff like this, branch out and expand into some new concepts and ideas and formats.
    1
  5. Archus88: How much actual research have you done to make these claims? Did ya do any experiments? Have you studied DNA and genes under the microscope yourself over many years? How much data have you collected? You said there is no new genetic information added from generation to generation...do a little bit of online research even, and you'd know this isn't true. DNA often does make random duplication's in the chain, and then that new chain can often times mutate forming new genetic information. Scientists know this happens, because it has been observed to happen. It never does this to the entire chain of DNA, but only in small chunks, which is why a cat will never give birth to a dog or fish at random. But it will give birth to a cat with better hearing, slightly better eye sight, maybe a thicker or thinner fur, little minute differences like this, that will add up over enough time, to eventually create a completely new species. Takes a very long time, but it is possible for something new to arise from something else. So most Creationists as far as I can tell, just don't believe in Macro Evolution...a term I'm pretty sure they made up themselves, but alright. But why can't you fathom the possibility that given enough evolutionary changes over thousands or millions of years, you could end up with a creature so vastly different from what it originally was, that is could no longer be considered of that species anymore? Birds share a very similar skeletal structure to Dinosaurs. Mammals share very few traits, so it can be safe to assume that birds share a more recent common ancestor to Dinos then we do. Mice and Rodents share many characteristics to a Bat, but none of them can fly. Go back a few millions years in evolution, and neither could the Bat...at some point, it's environment pushed it on a separate evolutionary path from its non flying cousins...it boggles me that you can't see the connections. What about mudskippers? Are they fish, or Salamander, or something inbetween?
    1