Holy shit. Way too much text for a video.
Wow, and he's not being lazy saying that. That is indeed way too much text.
And bad music.
Even when the screen is enlarged and paused, the code he wrote and put up at around -8:20 is impossible to read. He may be 100% right, but there's no way to verify his findings based on this video.
Yeah, because people who are satisfied with "why haven't I ever given birth to a monkey?" are going to understand that. Good job, guy.
All that text when simply saying "BECAUSE LIFE ON EARTH IS NOT THE SAME AS A FUCKING WATCH" would have sufficed.
|j lzrd / swift idiot |
You can't fight faith-based ignorance with complex arguments, but I did kind of enjoy this, for the intellectual masturbation it is.
j lzrd / swift idiot
And when can I give this the rightful two more stars? At least I can favorite it.
Good lord this video is terrible.
|Cap'n Profan!ty |
the humping clocks get the third and fourth star, and i turned the music off because sweet merciful fuck. also, this guy expects people to read WAY too fast; i can read it, but billie joe bumfuck may read a little more slowly than he or i.
I think it's interesting how only a day or two in the hopper and this thing got, like, 15 votes, but the second it hits the front page it gets creamed.
That aside, I thought it was interesting as I love shit about artificial life. The problem with the video is the awkward presentation (but then it's hard to do all this, provide most of the science, and make it workable in the 10 minute YouTube limit. Also, the guy assumes people viewing already have some familiarity with artificial life games, which I guess you would if you watched his videos a lot, but considering this is supposed to be countering people whose science knowledge is probably going to be a wee bit lacking, it was a bad idea.
It stands to reason. People are going to go through the hopper and see the text "Proof that creationists are stupid" and plus it on principle. Then when it hits the front page, you actually end up watching the thing.
It's like the opposite side of the "Eddie Van Halen shreds" conundrum.
I voted this through the hopper just so I could 1-star it. A YouTube video is probably the least effective format to demonstrate this in.
basically the hopper does not reflect the tastes of the site
I've got zero problem reading a bunch of text when it's in a book and I'm on my couch. When I'm listening to three seconds of a crappy Coldplay song looped while I stair at my monitor with a random amount of time reading white text on black on my fucking monitor, it becomes a lot more frustrating.
I've listened to like half an hour of ulillillia narration on how Sonic can glitch through walls, and that dude = so not a genius or a good narrator. When it's video, fucking narrate.
Plus, standards are just higher on the Internet.
Also, I started on the Internet in '96 when I was 14. I spent most of the time downloading porn JPEGs, but there was some Quake in there as well. I got C- grades in English throughout high school.
Skip 11 years forward, I now have a degree in English and somehow my typing on the Internet is worse than it was when I was a horny teenager looking for porn. I still don't fully grasp how this happens.
there was a point to this video... but I couldn't handle more than a few minutes of this animated text book - I had to skip through the hour-long minutes and terrible radio-rock, thus missing the point
Congratulations obtuse, arrogant, dreadfully boring probably autistic YouTube zealot, you've made me one star a video about science and evolution.
I hope you and Bono are very happy.
this guy's got a really great vid using randomized white noise to generate a picture which is pretty awesome.
This is probabally helpful to people who can't refute the blind watchmaker argument on their own. Yes, they are out there, and they are that dumb.
What is this shit, Coldplay? I'm not watching that.
Like you need a computer simulation to know that the watchmaker argument is for idiots.
Works just fine as a webpage or blog, not as a video set to Coldplay.
Also anyone who really believes that "Blind Watchmaker" refute of evolution isn't going to believe this video anyway. The Bible said so and that's that.
5 stars just for the people that hate reedin them there long wordy pages.
This was extremely well presented if you don't burst into tears when forced to read more than a paragraph.
I really wanted to 5-star this on the merits of the project, whoc sounded interesting -- but the godawful presentation, and the apparent assumption that a creationist touting the "blind watchmaker" argument will even pay attention, much less read it, are just way too much.
|Black Napkins |
Alife rocks, and I know how to use a pause button.
Mute and skip around a lot.
I think this was pretty fun, the way he actually programmed thousands of lines to prove this point. But I might be biased, I always have lenghty talks about evolution and artificial intelligence with my friend, who's studying AI.
I actually hadn't heard of the blind watchmaker theory before, there just aren't that many (or that loud) creationists in my country.
The video definitely could've used a narrator instead of just text. This is basically a web site adapted into a video. And since I'm always giving my conspiracy theorist friends a hard time about the production values of "their" videos, I suppose I have to drop one star from this as well.
He should translate that to Java so that I can play Clock God over the internet.
Preaching to the choir. Poorly.
Whiners. What the hell do you think you're doing while your scroll through the entire internet?
I thought it was neat. Plus Age of Pendulums sounds cool.
5 stars because personally I could read it fine, i would never read this if it were posted to a blog, and most of the "YEAH WELL ITS NOT LIKE CREATIONISTS CAN THINK ANYWAY" are faggots
|Spastic Avenger |
|Mole Wax |
5 stars for using Coldplay's hit single, "Clocks."
|Pie Boy |
-1 for Coldplay, 4 for convincing me of determinism
As a computer science geek I feel that I cannot give this less than 5 stars.
|Robin Kestrel |
I liked it. The delay between the pages seemed ill-timed in some cases (lingered too long on short obvious points, but advanced much too quick on important pages with lots of data and critical info), but that's what pause is for.
Also, really great (but burried) point on how the brief less-successful transitional forms won't be represented in the fossil records in numbers large enough to make discovery likely.
Also, I find "Clocks" to be the least-objectionable Coldplay song.
BAAAAW! I DON'T LIKE READING OR COLDPLAY!
I wish I was that talented, and motivated.
To me it seems somewhat obvious that if you set up rules for what constitutes fitness, and add in offspring and mutation, provided that your population doesn't die off completely, it will start to adapt. But then again, I've never done something as insane as try to deny the theory of evolution.
That said, the clocks figuring out their own gear ratios and then being judged on how accurate they are blows my mind.
Did not like the presentation, especially the beginning three minutes of just three notes on a piano.
The work is so awesome. Oh me oh my.
And as Robin Kestrel noted, pointing out that the brief transitions not being captured in the fossil record; beautiful. So awesome.
coldplay = auto 1, wish could be auto -10million
Very clever, though I can't help but think it's futile to try to persuade those who hold a belief that won't be affected by reason.
Also, if you don't watch/read it all, you probably shouldn't rate.
too many comments to read.
What the hell is wrong with people? This was an interesting video, it explained what it was doing and what the results were, and of course it won't convince people who desperately don't want to be convinced. It was still pretty damn cool.
Is there a surfeit of evolution / natural selection modeling videos out there that nobody has told me about?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|