Why Intelligent Design is WRONG, Part I
Uploaded by: cdk007
Video Description:
READ THIS
This video is NOT meant to be an accurate representation of evolution, as evolution does not have a predetermined goal (though there is the goal to reproduce). This video is meant to test one simple point, that
RANDOM MUTATION +
NON-RANDOM SELECTION =
VERY IMPROBABLE RESULT.
For further discussion on the use of a "goal" see below. For simulations that represent evolution more accurately see my later videos.
In this video I show why the central tenant of Intelligent Design or ID is wrong. They argue they can tell when an object is "designed", meaning it could not have arisen by chance, but their logic is fatally flawed. Here I will actually simulate evolution showing how impossibly improbable outcomes can appear quite easily, without anything being designed.
For those who fail to find solace in the fact that I have used a "goal" image in this video I will 1) offer a quaint explanation for how this DOES NOT impose design and 2) direct you to Part II of this video.
See, imagine there is an ecosystem where two species live in a symbiotic relationship. Species A offers food to species B for protection. The way species A recognizes species B is because B looks like SouthPark characters.
Now species C happens to also live in this environment but looks nothing like SouthPark characters. They resemble random noise. They go about collecting their food on their own. Evolution by natural selection and common sense tells us that any member of species C that has an advantage in collecting food will be better off (more energy and time for reproduction). Thus that advantage will be passed on.
Therefore, random mutations in species C's population that make members very slightly resemble SouthPark characters will be passed on because those organisms might be able to trick a member of species A every now and then more so than those that are just random noise. As mutations build up in the population of species C, they begin to resemble SouthPark characters more and more, thus tricking species A more and more getting free food and increasing their fitness.
Mimicry like this happens all the time in nature. The evolution of species C is not designed or directed. It just happens that those that resemble species B more (thus looking like a SouthPark character) will have a higher fitness. It is a product of their environment. They will pass on those mutations and the population will evolve.
To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?8vz1jesmyln
If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
http://www.mediafire.com/?azkwjyvl5yj
Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.
Tags for this video: Creation Creationism Data Debate Design Education Evolution Evolve Experiment Facts ID Intelligent Park South Wrong
Find more videos in the "Howto" category
See more videos uploaded by cdk007
| Intelligent Design? Watch it get schooled. | Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists | How Evolution REALLY Works, Part I |
 |  |  |
| Kirk Cameron gets Owned. Evolution is a myth! | How Evolution REALLY DOESN'T Work | disproving intelligent design with a mouse trap |
 |  |  |
Share This Video:
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Tell a friend:
you've gotten selection upside down. It removes the crap from the bottom. Everything and Anything that accomplishes reproduction has not been selected against. See? Way more variation than our artificial picking only the cream of the crop(a process know to lead to lots of compromises and problems).
Any creature consists of 1000s of genes. Given the artificial scenario of this SouthPark kids image single static goal, Having all 1000 fail to hide = death. Having only 950 fail to hide is not in the time frame of having only 20 fail to hide the individual. It's in the context of OTHER 950s.
Is camouflage an all or nothing function?
some say 10, some say 80. I like to remember that whenever i see the output of genetic algorithms, they ALWAYS exhibit a CE type phenomenon at every early onset of a radical change.
Those images are designed, NOT random. They "appear" random by computing numbers originating with a computer's clock which varies depending upon the unknown time of program execution.
Very good. How did it turn out?
Play evolution the game.
htt p://w ww.kevinpluck(.)net/evolution-versus-intelligence/
remove the spaces and elipses
:(
Google Long Term Ecoli Experiment Lenski citrus
"I do belive that there is change over time, but there cannot be "new species" over time."
So what stops the change?
Unless you argue DNA has no bearing on organisms "design" then you have to accept that the resulting organism from long term microevolution can end up looking and acting very different from its 'creation' state.
Heres an appologetic (bullshit excuse on "designers" behalf) I made for you, "He created microevolution and macroevolution so that man would see that the animals could change their ways, and if animals without a soul could do so, so could man with one."
There now speciation fits with your I.D. crap, you can stop arguing that its a lie.
Your statement should now read:
"text videos are boring, uninformative and just a waste of everyone(-1)'s time."
With a sample of 117,000 viewers and assuming everyone but me agrees with you. We can estimate that 51282 out of 6 billion people will find this intersting and informative.
I am not trying to make any point anymore and the 2 sentances above this one mark when this became a text based purposefully uninformative waste of your time.
:P
However as many non-english speaking people would find this conversation between us which they cannot read as boring as the video.
I guess that means we are, for the most part, boring people?
Heh, I'll admit it if you will!
That really puts things into perspective doesn't it?
More pointless expansion on this concept, NOW! Before one of them ebcomes interested! :)