Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell" channel.

  1. Lemons Rage agree. i'd only change one thing, 'in science every thesis is possibly true until disproven...' The conclusion is the same, faith is a free choice with no blame attached either way :)
    3
  2. "When do these finches turn into another species...?"   When 2 populations of 1 species change genetically enough so they don't interbreed, they're now 2 species.  simple, yes?    
    3
  3. zeke1220 hmmm... good point... i guess that could be right!  back of the envelope, say everest is 2 km tall pyramid with a 2km square base.  that's about 3 cubic km.  a 700 m cube is 0.3 cubic m.  if iron is roughly 10x the density of rock, it works out.  iron isn't quite that dense, but at least we're in the right order of magnitude.  ok, fact check: possible.
    2
  4. ***** true, you can get to much less than 5% error probability.  You can't get to 100% certainty with statistics, but that doesn't invalidate science. Knowledge of uncertainty is what makes data meaningful (a point you clearly understand but others don't).  
    2
  5. qusay al mahmoud "we are the only creatures with BIG BRAINS :D"  not so, actually.  dolphins have big brains, some bigger than ours!  the one basic thing that humans do that no other animal does is make fire.  i reckon all of our other human traits were made possible by that one innovation.  we've been using fire for at least 1 million years...
    2
  6. Pokemarky i was curious so i tried looking it up.  idk if their brains are more or less complex than humans, there are so many similarities and so many differences.  either way, the brain is a marvelous adaptation.  i had one once.
    2
  7. Clay Eickemeyer I was watching Red Dwarf episode with the highly intelligent infection. i imagine the amoeba like, "helooo, ladies and germs!"
    2
  8. 9432515 we are virus hear us roar, lol. to answer your question... idk, when something works it goes viral?
    2
  9. 9432515 You have may interesting points, so forgive me for focusing on one disagreement. "ToE is definitely politics and religious in form." I went to grad school in zoology and i did not find the theory itself religious or political. Not that i didn't see some nasty politics in the management side of wildlife. ToE is certainly surrounded by political and religious debate, but of thousands of papers i've read about animal behavior, ecology, and evolution, i don't recall ever thinking that political ideas were intruding. Welll, except if the animal in question was the human animal. Anything about people tends to get political. I'm sure the same thing happens when wolves study themselves, lol
    2
  10. nyah, nature doesn't "want as much diversity as possible" that's nonsense.  Selection can increase or decrease population genetic diversity.
    2
  11. god plays dice
    2
  12. Wastenot Wantnot what did you google, "no proof"?  seek and ye shall find
    2
  13. Pro Moe Robert Austin's got a superficial understanding of science and is making stuff up from the bible, so there goes that.  
    2
  14. Wastenot Wantnot where do you get these things, a creationism joke book?
    2
  15. Wastenot Wantnot btw PE is not a disgraced theory, and it is based on Darwinian evolution.  It explains the apparent stasis/ rapid change pattern found in fossils by two simple hypotheses: 1) major evolution tends to happen in small populations in a single location, followed by the growth and spread of that new form around the region or world.  2) the odds of finding fossils from that small population in the middle of it's change are very small. Both are quite likely true.   To emphasize again its often mis-understood nature, PE is based on standard Darwinian evolution by natural selection.  
    2
  16. budgerigar42 agree, mostly.  a couple clarifications.  1) the biological species concept (from ernst mayr) says that if two forms don't interbreed IN NATURE, they're considered two separate species.  you can put them in the same cage at the zoo and maybe they interbreed, but that doesn't count.  2) speciation USUALLY happens gradually.  Geographic isolation is a common mechanism (some birds fly to a remote island, or rising sea levels make a peninsula into an island, etc).  However, the apple worm speciated in a single year in the late 1800s -- perhaps a single mutation caused a worm to switch from native hawthorn to cultivated apples, and because hawthorn fruits in the spring and apples in the fall, in nature the new form doesn't cross with its parent form.  
    2
  17. fact check:  is Everest only the same mass as a 700m cube??  Everest is miles high... not even counting it's foundations.
    1
  18. erigor11 yup.  that's a good example of an evolutionary "constraint."  
    1
  19. Hesa Wanderer the only race "more evolved" than a species on earth would be a species from an older planet.
    1
  20. Jean Roche Good point, could be... we also might be from seeds older than earth.
    1
  21. Clay Eickemeyer agree, i was thinking of evolved based on time. there are other measures as you say... The largest genome may be the amoeba Polychaos dubium, which also has the most bad ass scientific name of any protozoan.
    1
  22. TheZappi30 Close. Imagine there's a gene with two alleles, one for "get rich" and one for "get poor." IF people with the get-rich allele have more kids, after many generations most people will have the get-rich allele.   But today, rich people have fewer kids... the poor allele would be more fit in the evolutionary sense. But I don't think there actually are rich and poor alleles. Most rich people had poor ancestors! And money is a recent invention of our species; we might have genes for "store food" and "collect pretty stones" though.
    1
  23. Josh Zwies "true knowledge is determined by what we can see and demonstrate"" Disagree. What you see can be an illusion. What you demonstrate can be a trick. There is no true knowledge.   We have in physics generated models that follow logical rules and allow us to predict almost every fundamental event ever observed on earth. But is it true? Who knows. On the relative scale, Evolution is as certain as gravitation.
    1
  24. Josh Zwies "Animals do not have a consciousness of God, only of themselves" I believe Job questions that conclusion: "But ask the beasts, and they will teach you;     the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you;     and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know     that the hand of the Lord has done this? In his hand is the life of every living thing     and the breath of all mankind." Job 12:7-9 ESV
    1
  25. Walter Boxhead did god give animals morals? interesting question. in my model god made the universe with some fancy physics and set it loose with free will for all.   that free will can be a source of morals; it's what the social contract is based in (Locke), which to my mind is the most rational approach to interpersonal morality. or inter-bat morality. of course, human morality can be reasoned into existence; bat morality took the trial and error process of evolution, but certain results are similar; the golden rule appears in humans and other animals. genes for parental care and such compassion and altruism are also ubuquitous in animals. so... yes, thank dog!
    1
  26. JustTheFacts Given that the human genome is 8% ERVs, the designer apparently favored viruses as much as people.
    1
  27. N Marbletoe more seriously, ERVs are way cool, thx for introducing me to them! it's way crazy that we might be 8% virus. Maybe there's another explanation... perhaps transposons were the original sequences, and some of them escaped the cell to become viruses. However, does seem possible that the original sequences were indeed viruses, and when they landed in a DNA molecule, occasionally it actually helped improve the function of that organism.
    1
  28. JustTheFacts ok, so on the tree of life if you make one cut, you get a monophyletic group. If you have to make more than one cut to get the group you define (say, Carrotae: true carrots plus carrot top the comedian) then the group is polyphyletic. yes?
    1
  29. JustTheFacts well said, and i do agree. Science ideally gives increasingly better models of the universe. I was thinking especially of the brainstorming phase which you mention, where any plausible idea should be at least considered as we hone in on things to actually test. That's a really fun process, going from brainstorming to a pilot study. About utility... evolution is to the 2000s what thermodynamics was to the 1800s and electromagnetism to the 1900s. We're in full swing in a major revolution that may be more profound than any before it. With the quantum/ molecular revolution, for the first time we can manipulate single atoms and construct custom molecules in living or nonliving forms.   Someday our home 3-D printers will make anything from a replacement ear to a pet glowing barking catfish.
    1
  30. ***** r.e. your original post, "I wish for 2 things..." What if aliens are found and they are deeply religious?
    1
  31. "supposedly prove how one species supposedly changes in to another species, but they all start out as finches, they changes in to finches and are still to this day finches." You need to look up the definition of "species" 
    1
  32. Robert Austin you don't get proof you get evidence.  that's true for most things that can't be directly observed, like most ANYTHING IN THE PAST.  
    1
  33. Robert Austin*"Genesis says each creature will produce "after it's own KIND"*   FALSE!  It does NOT say that.  
    1
  34. Robert Austin You have invented the quote that the bible says things reproduce after their own kind.  If not, provide chapter, verse, and version.  It's fine to have that interpretation if you admit it's an interpretation -- but if you claim "the bible says" then you're bearing false witness against the holy book.
    1
  35. Wastenot Wantnot I appreciate your proving an exact quote with reference, "Gen 1:24 “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.”  It's a reasonable interpretation to say this means things 'reproduce after their own kind' but that's not the literal meaning, nor is it he only reasonable interpretation.  One could interpret more literally it to mean that things were created in different kinds.  It doesn't say how, and it certainly does not say that things cannot change.   One could easily look at "let the earth bring forth" and take it literally to mean abiogenesis.  
    1
  36. Robert Austin  mEve is cool, she really existed (about 200,000 ya) and is the ancestor of all alive today.  i believe the flood was real about 15,000 ya when the glaciation ended, but that's just my opinion.   Agree that DNA doesn't disprove god or the bible, especially bcs the bible is not against evolution.  The bible gets the order of evolution approximately correct, and Jacob used evolution with his flocks. The bible even has abiogenesis ! Mae Zeppa  mitochondrial dna is human dna (it's not 'nuclear' dna).  everything else you said is right. TheDusk420  you're right about evolution.  however there was a global flood 15,000 ya and it could have been recorded in oral tradition eventually leading to the bible version.  As for whether science disproves god/bible, as Mae Zeppa said it depends on if you take Genesis literally or not...  
    1
  37. TheDusk420 1) there's been a global flood every time a glaciation period ends, which is many times per ice age.  was it 40 days and nights of rain// did it cover all the earth's mountains?  no, but sea level rise of 250 feet probably displaced the majority of the world's population over many years.   2)  is a global rain event possible... that would be very weird.  however,  I've heard that a big astroid could produce a 'nuclear winter' scenario... do you think that might include global rainfall, maybe if the asteroid hit the ocean?
    1
  38. Mae Zeppa haha, i'm really not trying to reconcile religion and science.  i've got science to test any theory i can come up with.  ancient myths should be a rich source of hypotheses about events over the last 50k years....   TheDusk420 are you sure you don't like the idea just because it's in the bible?  cause you're both sounding just a wee bit too sure of yourselves, "never ever at all..."   I challenge you both to show that the last end-glaciation about 15 kya was not global.  :-|  
    1
  39. Mae Zeppa TheDusk420  Kazam, gocha both!!  65 mya... on a world hit by an asteroid... "The intense acid rainfall only spiked the upper surface of the ocean with sulfuric acid, leaving the deeper waters as a refuge."  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/dinosaur-killing-asteroid-acid-rain_n_4933735.html Enough rain to turn sea levels acidic globally, boom-chucka-lucka. You're both so used to pushing against a fanatical biblical literalism, when it wasn't there you fell over like keystone cops.  
    1
  40. Robert Austin  Mae Zeppa RA's link includes the Hopi origin myth, which i've read in the Book of Hopi by Frank Waters:  the 4th age ended in a global flood, and the Hopi ancestors survived to the current 5th age by hitching ride with the ant people on their boats. idk who the ant people were, but there's a global flood myth from people living in the desert!
    1
  41. TheDusk420  Mae Zeppa  i've tricked you both into sounding like fanatical fundamentalists, hahahaHAHA roflmao!  i didn't mean to, but here you are... 1) denying a plausible idea using absolute terms 2) repeatedly ignoring specific cited evidence So just remember that, next time you feel like calling someone an eediot, we're all eediots on occasion.   You're welcome for the lesson.  Homework is due on Friday.
    1
  42. Mae Zeppa la-la-la... i'm too busy doing the victory dance to hear your feeble attempt at post-rationalization of your categorical denial of a highly plausible hypotheses without consideration of any evidence... la-da-da-dee-do (it's to the tune of "we are the champions by Queen)   until you admit that a global flood is a theoretical possibility you'll continue to pay tribute to my vast empire of being right
    1
  43. Mae Zeppa  you're getten' it :)  it's a James Campbell vibe.
    1
  44. Mae Zeppa doood, i'm not a creationist.  i've done field research where we actually demonstrated beak evolution in Hawaiian birds. if you think you can declare victory by ignoring the examples i provided of known global floods, sorry, fail i'm going to do some flapping now because unless you can counter the citation i provided i did win, yay me!  
    1
  45. Mae Zeppa ps, i do think god created everything, by using physical laws and evolution...  
    1
  46. TheDusk420 if the bible said there was NO global flood ever, i bet you'd have the opposite view.    you: there has never been a global flood me:  two examples, 1. 15 kya, glaciers melting (slow and global), 2. chicxulub asteroid, acid rain (fast and global) (btw you seem confused -- kya does not mean kentucky yardage adjustment, and chicxulub is not a poultry purveyor.) you're right most of the time debating creationism and that's your problem. you think that because it's in the bible it's wrong.  creationists think that because it's in the bible it's right.  there's not much difference in those two attitudes.
    1
  47. TheDusk420  to paraphrase Vader, your absolute faith is disturbing.   1.  glacier melting flooded everything within 250 feet of sea level.  that's an event worthy of inclusion in any tribe's oral history/ mythology, and indeed we find many examples of such mythology.  the timeline is reasonable -- long before writing, but well within cultural memory.  2.  if the rain from Chicxulub was enough to acidify the entire upper level of the ocean, it was surely enough to cause floods all over the land as well. neither example fits the biblical detail of the entire earth being covered in water.  of course #2 is long before human times, but #1...  it's quite plausible that it is an exaggeration born of thousands of years of reciting oral history and inventing things to make the story dramatic, personal, and memorable.  that's how myths are often built around real people or events. (i figured you knew what kya was, but i had to say something so you'd actually address my examples.)   if you say "there was no noah's flood," i'd have to admit you might be right.  "there was no global flood in the entire history of the planet is plain hogwash."   hope you're happy with your sparkling clean pig!
    1
  48. Mae Zeppa appreciate your view on historical events in  the bible (tho of course they're told only from one side).   however, on the flood i'm not clinging to a fairy tail, i'm  insisting on the validity of a hypothesis; to wit, that a global flood of some kind (not covering all land, but affecting all regions) occurred within human memory and is recorded in many myths.   you can reasonably reject it for lack of evidence, but it's a valid hypothesis, and the event 15 kya should be a real candidate for the origin of flood mythologies.  
    1
  49. Mae Zeppa  TheDusk420  a "great flood," pro and con: Bob Ballard, pro (glacial melting): http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533 wiki, con: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology Bruce Masse, environmental archaeologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, pro (comet): http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/great-flood1.htm talkorigins, con: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
    1
  50. Mae Zeppa I think that's the first time you have said "all regions" is not "global."  You can argue against a flood that covers every inch of land, but that's not my position so you're just talking to air. TheDusk420  You want google scholar citations, here's a pdf of a paper on the comet theory ca 5 kya (note page 55 where it describes how a comet could produce intense global rainfall). ftp://tsun.sscc.ru/sm11e/nh_full_7aug13/hiwg/PABL/Masse_2007_ICSU_Paper.pdf (This is not a creationist theory, this is by a scientist from LANL.) Robert Austin  you may like pp 44-49... out of 175 south american tribes, 171 had a flood myth.  
    1