Search:

F1 Racing Formula One Racing F1 Car Racing Grand Prix Racing F1 Kart Racing McLaren Racing Team Williams F1 Team Ferrari F1 Racing Renault F1 Team F1 Racing Cars Racing School F1 Racing Game BMW F1 Racing Indy Car Racing

Why Intelligent Design is WRONG, Part I

Formula 1 Racing
Formula 1 Racing Formula 1 Racing
Formula 1 Racing

READ THISThis 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/?8vz1... the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.

Channel: Howto & Style
Uploaded: July 17, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Author: cdk007

Length: 04:18
Rating: 4.23
Views: 113183

Tags: Creation  Creationism  Data  Debate  Design  Education  Evolution  Evolve  Experiment  Facts  ID  Intelligent  Park  South  Wrong  

Video Url:


Embed Code:

Video Comments

machalot (October 10, 2008 at 4:14 am)
It would be neat if you could come up with a selection criteria that is not predetermined, but somehow "natural". I'm not sure how this could be done, except maybe that a picture is somehow favored by the computer either by load time, compressed size on the disk, or something inherent that actually makes the picture better for its environment.
Cosmodot256 (October 9, 2008 at 11:38 pm)
Interesting video, but I don't think many people are going to get where you're coming from. Maybe just a bit off course.
inthefade (October 6, 2008 at 6:39 pm)
it is just part of a larger argument.
damianpoirier (October 6, 2008 at 1:21 pm)
even after reading the sidebar?
bornondate1968 (October 6, 2008 at 12:49 pm)
Weak video argument.
Valelacerte (October 5, 2008 at 4:43 pm)
Lol, Creationists! They believe in Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, a talking snake, an invisible, omnipotent creator, and a Universe that is only 6,000 years old. But they just want to discuss Biology - talk about ignoring the elephant in the room!
Onithyr (October 5, 2008 at 4:20 pm)
"As far as dismissing ID, it is plain weak."Are you claiming that the ID arguments are not weak in the first place? Their entire argument is one from ignorance claiming that evolution alone cannot account for such things. If evolution DOES work then they are without an argument (not that they had one anyway as it was based on a logical fallacy).
damianpoirier (October 5, 2008 at 2:00 am)
it is the first of 2 parts. Please continue on to number two.
reidres (October 5, 2008 at 1:28 am)
The "evolving sentence" is no more significant than the evolving South Park character. Intelligence designed the pixels the "random" aspect of the mutations, the algorithm to do the mutation and the algorithm that recognized the goals, and the goals themselves. This is a trivial presentation about random mutation--and in that regard it succeeds. As far as dismissing ID, it is plain weak. Even if Darwinism is flawless as a science, this presentation is simply not persuasive regarding that.
RiPHendrix5796 (October 5, 2008 at 12:00 am)
retared your this read you if-0R-Or-fi uoy dear sith ruoy deratedrepost this to a video if u can read it

Formula 1 Racing © 2007 All Rights Reserved.