I don't think I'd be able to post much other than what's already around in the HTML5 topic at the GMC:
http://gmc.yoyogames.com/index.php?showforum=100

Or just on the yoyogames site, screenshot wise.

xot from has a topic on gmlscripts.com which is listing all the functions that aren't working:
http://www.gmlscripts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=1901

And it keep an eye out for the help file which he said there he'd try post online ASAP.

The GUI is still very much GM still(sprites, objects, paths, rooms, etc etc), but the dark skin isn't so good, at least for me. You can see screenshots on the html5 site.

You can turn off the skin, and you can recolor the buttons and that, and people have started to post recoloring options for the scripts,etc.

edit: Video here done by someone. I haven't watched it yet, though:

Just for those who are interested, (and those that missed it), the GM html5 beta is out now for $99:
http://yoyogames.com/gamemaker/html5

It's half the price of the full version, so even if you don't feel like using a buggy beta, it's worthwhile getting it.

Also, if your thinking of skipping this and waiting for GM studio, just bear in mind that people who purchase GM html5 are getting a discount of at least $99 on Studio.. whatever that is priced at.

Unfortunately, there is (currently?) no trial download for anyone who wants to have a look-see before purchasing.

(I had a good look around, and it hadn't seem to be announced here yet. If it has been, just let me know, I'll lock this topic).


*****************************

Anyway, so I picked it up, and I've been running a few of my projects through it. Still a few functions that aren't working yet,(this is very clearly a beta) so those one's that rely on them (motion planning) aren't working so good, but otherwise, this is pretty cool stuff... at least, for a GM user, who never thought he'd get his games on the web.

I really don't like the look of the new GUI, just not for me at all.

Otherwise, looking forward to making some nice little web games. 

Ahh, neat, thanks for that. You need more spell of the week topics, they are very cool!

Haha, neat game! Gameplay is very weird.

Haha, yeah, but I have no idea what Communion is. I guess it helps your summoned animals, or something. :p The only ones I understood was Force, Incantation, and Resistance.

I beat Death! In the end, I finished with 4 loses (2 of them where when I was AFK for too long!). Pretty neat, the meteor is way powerful.

Is there any 'guide' to Magi? It'd be handy to get some explanations on some of this stuff. I'm pretty sure I can get to my 'unique' abilities faster in some way, because it takes aages to get them.

actually GM is able to port to mac and iphone, and they are working on being able to port it to html5 too

but it's true that back around 2008 it was windows-only; it's expanded since then

I'd only say GM can port to mac, atm, iOS ports can only be done via publishing with YYG's (not really an option, since they aren't open) of via the yet-to-be-released GM studio. Html5 beta is meant to be out in a few days, though.

Concerning GM games not selling well, I think that's primarily the GM users.. mostly hobbiests/youngsters, even if they make a good game, they won't have the marketting know-how, the contacts, etc, to boost their game to a commercial success. As Rinkuhero said, there have been games that sold well.

I wouldn't concern yourself too much about this. I think if you want your game to be taken seriously, you yourself have to take it seriously. The tool itself doesn't really have anything to do with it.

Ahh, Dispel, o.k. that one seems neat. I should try get it, should be useful to pull out then use a barrage of missiles.

Mmm, thanks for the advice. I was just really struggling to get through, my force is quite low, and most of my tech had gone on blue/green. I hadn't any meteor's at the time, and no grey tech at all (it seemed the weakest, so...) I was getting through, but she had such a high blue count, she was able to shield up/heal and keep on par, and she was dangerous enough so I had to spend time healing/protecting myself.

I was opening lots of channels, but I hadn't long got to 8 green, and 8 red, when she'd use Dispel on me, so the time lost getting that high was lost since she's then got plenty of time to build shield, heal, etc.

So yeah, not diverse enough, this mage I raised is a bit one-dimentional, (or was so at the time!)

Thought you'd like to know a little typo I noticed.

When you right-click the Drain Essense weapon, it says Castng time, or something like that, on the pop up message.

I also had this friggin massive battle with an ice queen. Uh, I think you have some sort of reset stat button if the battle goes on too long. It reset about 3 times, we just weren't getting anywhere against each other. Would have been a draw, except I had to quit some time! :p

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6477/a_rational_approach_to_racing_game_.php?print=1

finally!

Thanks for sharing mate!

I do recall. You also dismissed it as a "layman explanation," therefore, an incorrect one. But that doesn't make any sense.

I didn't say it was an incorrect one, I said it was unsatisfactory. I want facts/evidence, not looking for 'it could have'.

In any case, I was referring to the way the eye evolution was explained. You said it's impossible. That there is no possibility that a "complex" structure could evolve.

Someone pointed to a definite feasible possibility. Then you go ahead and say that we shouldn't start looking for explanations, as that's apparently dangerous?

No, I didn't say it was impossible, or if I did(I can't see where I did), I would mean improbable. I said I had strong reserves about a complex, and complete system evolving by chance mutations.

The key word is 'can', 'could have', etc. These are key words in all explanations for the evolution of the eye, giraffe, etc, etc. And that is just in the mapping out the path that the evolutionary process 'could' have taken.

If you cannot construct a rational basis for your beliefs, you should not expect people to accept them. Furthermore, if you cannot construct a rational basis for your beliefs, they are dangerous.

I'm not sure I offered any alternate theory. I'm questioning some points in evolution.

Also, topics you outright avoided in regards to intelligent design: vestigial organs, flaws in the structure of the human eye in comparison to the structure of the cephalopod eye, incredible historical inaccuracies of the bible, such as the sun thing, etc.

Beh.

Do you see where I'm coming from, here?

I have been VERY skimpy in my posts. Couple of reasons for this, 1: Personal limited knowledge, 2: Time factor (look, there is like 1 of me, and several of you guys, all who want responses to your posts/points, etc) and to give quality responses in that sort of volume is impossible for me. I'm just being pretty sketchy here. You guys are intelligent, and can draw your own conclusions.

As for intelligent design, I'm not pushing that. I'm simply questioning evolution, and some problems I have with it. Yes, some of my points have come from a 'creationist/intelligent design' perspective, but it's been other people who have been dragging that into the conversation. I've avoided it.

At best, you have to alter your statement if you wish to remain in the discussion. "It is observably possible that a complex structure could have evolved, as was explained. However, I believe it happened some other way, that it was designed by God anyway, with no other evidence of god's existence except for the bible, which has been discredited on multiple occasions." This could be the end of the discussion. This is irrefutable. This is what you believe, even without evidence. We could all part ways here.

And yet, you will not alter your statement. You stick with "It's impossible for evolution to happen because God." Even though it's been refuted, and therefore must be altered if it is to progress.

You haven't been reading what I said. I never said anything about God. Your reading 'into' my posts, and reading into the wrong direction.

Yes, evolution exists. Genetic mutations, or simply natural selection of strong genes surviving/being more dominant, etc. Progressive evolution from a simple system to a complex system has NOT been observed, and is in theory only. What we rely on is fossil evidence, and despite having fossils of dino's, etc, which are meant to be 'really' old, we can't manage to find decent fossils of 'intermediate/transitional' creatures.

Genetic mutation(X) is part of the process of progressive evolution(Y). We know X is true, therefore, Y maybe possible?

Nothing wrong with that, but no justification for statements such as "Can't see how people can deny evolution", or "Same amount of evidence as gravity", etc.

And yes, I'd tried to be finished here, but your post was somewhat strongly aimed at me, so I did feel the need to clarify my post(s).

Creationist Statement: Complex structures could not have evolved.

Reply: Yes they could have, here's a way. (Points to explanation.)

Well actually.. the explanation/answer they linked to was what I linked to in my very first post that I brought up the giraffe design query.

So much bullshit.

That's fine. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, or change their minds. It generated some interesting discussion. I appreciate the answers that others spent their time giving.

@Derek: I'd actually already linked to that giraffe post earlier.

Your link(s) makes 'sweeping, broad, dismissive' statements,(much like I tend to make..!). There was a response to those points done by a creationist (shock horror!) which talkorigins kindly linked to. Unfortunately the response to THAT response is dead. But it's a good link and takes it's time to back up it's statements.

religious text written 2000+ years ago, which also claims that the Earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it, two things that have been objectively proven false.

That sounds very greek philosophy/pseudo science to me. If your referring to the Bible, then just google 'bible earth is round', or something similar, as it isn't the case at all, and there are reference to that the 'earth hangs in space' and to that it was spherical/round.

@Tumersu: I hadn't planned(and still don't!) on replying anymore to the thread, having shared my views, and not wanting to pontificate, but thanks for the reply, and your absolutely right: I do not read enough books with contrasting views. Time.. so fleeting.

"Chance mutation" is only one mechanism of evolution. If all life reproduced by cloning, then indeed it would be unlikely. But as I tried in vain to explain to you in a previous post, that's just not how it works! Until you grasp that, could you please stop airing your opinion on the subject? Because it's simply incredibly uninformed!

The "shaky groundwork" you speak of is not only false, but very funny to hear from someone who supposedly thinks creationism is an as (or more?) valid "theory".

Your correct, I am speaking 'airly' of my own opinions. I don't really plan to get into an indepth discussion.. this is a thread about aliens! In fact, all I'm really doing is replying to 'can't see how people can deny evolution' question, and stating basics of my own views, very generally.

 Also, I didn't actually bring up what I thought was a more valid theory.. mostly because I know people 'throw that up' as some sort of counter argument, or insult.

And yes, I had read your post. Thanks for your explanation.

Recombinations of mum&dad genes to make a stronger animal(or animal more likely to survive), and hence, those gene types are 'preserved' onto future animals, yes.
 But recombining genes doesn't create a new animal/characteristic. That requires an entirely new element, an mutation. Beneficial genetic mutations are extremely rare, and I fail to see how that removes 'chance'.

Every one of us is an incredibly complex creature, crafted over billions of years, unique in every possible way; we have a history of millions of creatures, and in fact, share a lot of our genome with a fly. But we are different! We have writing, and philosophy, and religion.

Well, no, everyone on of us is an incredibly complex creature. That's a fact.

There is remarkably little evidence/proof for evolution, despite being the predominate 'scientific' theory for the last 100+years. I mean, the age of the earth, judged by examining meteoric material.. which people assumed formed at the same time as earth.

That is such a shaky deduction, made from so many assumptions. And evolution depends/relies on many other such shaky 'facts', which rely on many assumptions.

It's like me saying, with the (relatively) recent rise of so many 'animal' care centers/systems/laws, that that is 'proof' of incarnation.. we subconsciously sympathise with creatures that we 'use to be' and want what is best for them.

Bizarre, but that's how I feel evolutionary facts are generally based on. People have this theory, this idea of how things are, and then 'read' things to fit in with what they want.

That's fine, but when you start making statements like 'this is how it is..' with such shaky groundwork, that's dangerous grounds to walk on, scientifically. You look at a giraffe, you look at it's complex neck valve system, which slows the pressure as it lowers it's head, inreases it as it lifts it's head, perfectly, so that there is no head rush/lack of blood, and you think 'well this gradually happened over millions of years'.

Giraffe's my current example, but the eye is a good one, too. Massively complex system, and one thinks 'well, how did this evolve.. let's map out a way it could have done so'.

That's a dangerous way to do/teach science.

Thanks for the big post though, bub, sorry I'm not reply to all the points(time/tired.. too much time on the internets), and I'm NOT going to get into yet another big argument/discussion. :D I'm not trying to disrespect your(or anyone else's) own views, merely throw my own viewpoint into the cauldron.


@D_Yu: Thanks for the link, I had a good read through half of the wiki article(then skimmed the rest). While it maps out a path that a possible evolution 'could' have occured, I definitely still have some strong, strong reserves about such a complex system being built up my chance mutations, over hundreds of millions of years.

Simple mistake. Your saving a real value, and writing it as a string. use ini_write_real()

Those with long neck and weak heart simply were more likely to die before breeding therefore leading to dominance of big heart genes.

Well the problem isn't just the heart being strong/weak. It needs to be strong to get the blood up to the head, but it also needs to be 'weak' so as to not blow the head off when the giraffe dips it's neck down to drink. Hence the complex valve system in it's neck, that 'shuts off the pressure' as the giraffe drops it's head.

If it does one thing wrong(weak heart, valve not function), the giraffe is dead. Logically, how can something accidentally evolve in this precarious perfect balance? The explanation I linked to doesn't say/do enough for me, and hence why my views contrast to yours.

 There are many other animals with similar, unique characteristics, which defy logic. I dunno, a few bacteria 'evolving' in a tank, and genetic breeding simply isn't enough to convince me that we all came about via evolution. We're talking about some freaking complex systems here, than maintain a tentative balance. I just don't think that you can expect any of these systems(whether it is animal, plant, etc) to come to past by chance mutations/evolutions, that turned out well, over a span of millions/billions of years.

Thanks for your big post, though, and I appreciate the explanation for the reason of non-ape men.

@Schoq: Cheers buddy, your absolutely right. I got my facts up the whopper.
http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.html
It was all non-africans! :p Sorry about that. Still fits in with the context of what I was saying, though.

You have to keep in mind that evolution is cumulative change, not direct jump to complete specie.

Well, that's the problem many people have, e.g. one that studies the design of specific animals closely, and they think, 'how the heck does this evolve?! There isn't anyway, for gradual evolution to get this fixed'.

An example that pops to mind is the Giraffe heart one. Huge heart, pumps very hard to get blood up to the head. When giraffe bends head down to drink, head explodes from blood pressure. No, actually it doesn't, because of quite a complicated set of values in it's neck which 'shuts down' the pressure as it lowers it's neck.

That simply doesn't evolve.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB325.html

The response to that point is adequate only on a layman level, I really don't think it's satisfactory at all.

Ape didn't just gave birth one day to fully evolved homo sapiens. That would be very in-probable. What makes these things possible in short time frame is cumulative change which is VERY efficient mechanism for evolution.
Current studies seem to think that before the first specie, there might have been some kind of survival of fittest competition between self-replicating molecules. What this means that the very first step may have been rather small and easy to happen which created the first copying molecules. After that natural selection did it's job.

That's another bizarre thing about the theory. Natural selection, survival of the fittest.. evolving into 'better' species.. if that was the case, why are their apes, and why are their humans?

Surely the apes, who 'evolved' into a better ape are still around. I mean, there must have been millions of small gradual changes to get an ape to a human, and these changes are meant to be for the better, making them fitter, faster, stronger, smarter, etc. Yet somehow, we only have humans, and only have apes. The 'inbetween' guys are gone.

Where? All we've found is a few bones of 'neanderthals' which evolutionists have reluctantly decided are human.. or kinda human.

... sorry, this post sounds a bit antagonistic. It isn't meant to be, I'm only just speculating out loud my thoughts, I know how heated these sorts of discussions can become.

So, yeah. I really don't understand how people can deny evolution.

I don't think I'll deny that something can 'evolve' although we'll argue about that definition later (or not.. I don't really plan on sticking around in this convo that long)

Genetics is powerful, yes, and we've seen many instances where blending different genetic pools produce a stronger animal/plant.

However, that doesn't necessarily imply evolution. It could even imply devolution.. you had 1, strong genetic pool, and that 'broke down' and gradually spread out over a large population (we know in-breeding is genetically unhealthy), and eventually ended up with smaller pools, much 'weaker'.. unbalanced, stronger characteristics. When two different gene pools, with different strengths reform, stronger result.

The real 'deny evolution' thing your talking about is that evolution is given the position of 'beginner' of life, kinda thing. Goo-to-you, by way of the zoo kinda thing (yeah, old, I know, but catchy...)

That is improbable. Mathematically, it's bizarre. The huge time needed (if such an endeavor was even possible) clashes with many people's different idea's/knowledge of the various age of the wolld/solar system, not to mention their own knowledge of the design of various aspects of this world/universe.

So yes, it's very easy to deny it.

So why aren't neanderthal's human? They have the human stature, human features.. oh, sure, artists like to 'dress' them up with ape' like faces, but at the end of the day, who actually saw them.

they're definitely intelligent (they had bigger brains than humans) but they aren't homo sapiens. species aren't distinguished by how they look; some species look identical

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2532-neanderthals-were-separate-species-new-study-finds

Neanderthals were a separate species to Homo sapiens, as anatomically modern humans are known, rather than offshoots of the same species, the new organigram published Sunday by the journal Nature declares.

humans and neanderthals are related -- probably about as closely related as dogs and wolves, or horses and zebras, or whales and dophins, or buffalo and cattle, or camel and llama, or donkey and horse, or lion and tiger -- but, like those, are still separate species

Well that articles link was dead, and I'm not really convinced by reading what they say.

You read studies like 'most of africans are part Neanderthal', etc, and I'm just thinking, o.k. what exactly DEFINES a Neanderthal. As being different from a human.

I'm not an evolutionist, so different view points amongst people from that direction, but I simply think there was at one time a small, genetic pool of humans, and that one of them was the 'Father of Neanderthals' went from their to spawn his 'neanderthals' which spread, and you can still find his DNA in Africans today (as studies show).

That small genetic pool went on to create a large variety of 'races' which is why we see such people like the pygmies, which are VERY human, yet are different from most of us. (you probably live in a community who on average, are 2-3 feet higher than the average pygmy).

It's interesting to speculate, isn't it?

@pleasingfungus - that's true, but another way to look at it from the religious perspective is: if evolution isn't true, why did god create *two* intelligent species, the neanderthal aren't mentioned in the bible. why would he create two separate human-like species and allow one of them to totally kill off the other? and then not mention one at all in his official message/word?

So why aren't neanderthal's human? They have the human stature, human features.. oh, sure, artists like to 'dress' them up with ape' like faces, but at the end of the day, who actually saw them.

Let's remember how diverse humans are. E.g. look at pygmy's. If pygmy's were *extinct* would we assume they were some sub-evolved species?

Well, yes, I think we would, but that isn't the case at all.

Neanderthil's is a bit of a false concept that was started right at the beginning of the 'evolutionist' theory, when Charles Darwin spotted some island native's who spent most of their lives hunched over in a canoe.. so they had a strange posture.

And then there have been the various hoaxes, mixing monkey&human bones, which have not helped to prove evolution, but have certainly put a lot of public emphasis on a 'missing link' or a 'Neanderthal' type creature.

I think Neanderthal's are humans, and don't see how they can't/aren't accepted as such.