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 arg
ue 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 sola
ce 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 sligh
tly 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 h
ave 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 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

Related Videos
Michele Bachmann on intelligent designRobin Ince on CreationismIntelligent Design
michele-bachmann-on-intelligent-design.htmlmichele-bachmann-on-intelligent-design.htmlmichele-bachmann-on-intelligent-design.html
Scholastic Films Presents Intelligent DesignIntelligent Design? Watch it get schooled.Proof that Intelligent Design is Creationism
michele-bachmann-on-intelligent-design.htmlmichele-bachmann-on-intelligent-design.htmlmichele-bachmann-on-intelligent-design.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
Science is studying ... ( 1 week ago by damianpoirier)
Science is studying the actual biological mechanisms of aging and life. Just as we make things stronger, faster, brighter, louder,etc do things that NOTHNG biological could do. We will do those things and more when we really gain controll at the molecular level and build machines at that scale. Machines that evolution could never design. Think about it.
damianpoirier, " ... ( 1 week ago by unlending)
damianpoirier, "Imagine that your god doesn't exist...Would you suddenly lose all interest in all of life's pleasures? would it then reduce to a pile of shit for you? Of couse because you are SHIT FOR BRAINS." and you can prove all this is possible with DNA samples? thot not, u idiot. so now u want to have some kind of purpose? maybe care for family, motiviation to pursue a career, develop skills etc. hey "SHIT FOR BRAINS" ur talking in circles.
unlending, "man has ... ( 1 week ago by unlending)
unlending, "man has a purpose and seeks to define man's purpose through an accumulation of truths." damianpoirier, "circular but adequate even with out an omnipotent master pulling your strings" correct again, except you use textbooks and the fallable word of man your "omnipotent master pulling your strings" circular indeed. so you are not able to prove man has developed a mind from a brain. hey, "SHIT FOR BRAINS' even an 8 year old aborigine can prove that for you.
damianpoirier " ... ( 1 week ago by unlending)
damianpoirier "Science is studying the actual biological mechanisms..." curious what u call things science cant explain? superstition, belief, religion, theory? "We will do those things and more when we really gain controll..." very probable, but man has much to learn. "Machines that evolution could never design." i call that intelligent design. dont limit ur thots to non-living machines. can there be a biological machine? what is the definition of horsepower or machine? "Think about it"
damianpoirier "Of ... ( 1 week ago by unlending)
damianpoirier "Of couse because you are SHIT FOR BRAINS" of course that would be true if i were the result of a million years of random accidents, overcoming immense odds and plain old luck. isnt that what you claim as your happenstance lineage?
damianpoirier " ... ( 1 week ago by unlending)
damianpoirier "Machines that evolution could never design" expand your horizon: you tube - 'Questioning evolution theory THIS IS INCREDIBLE'
"everything happens ... ( 1 week ago by jtyranus)
"everything happens by chance, randomness & without purpose" evolution is a nonrandom process. "THEN nothing that man does will ever matter" an argument from consequences is a logical fallacy. even if that consequence were to be true it would not change the reality of evolution.
"i call that ... ( 1 week ago by jtyranus)
"i call that intelligent design" except life gives no indication of intelligent design. all life is evolved from the previous life and man is just a derived ape. "so you are not able to prove man has developed a mind from a brain." if evolution occurred and you think mans mind was intelligently designed then you should probably accept theistic evolution. or Biologos as Collins calls it.
you completely ... ( 1 week ago by alfamale05)
you completely misrepresented natural selection. You also left out environmental pressures witch would be crucial for natural selection to work. good job
read the side bar ( 1 week ago by damianpoirier)
read the side bar
unlending, " ... ( 1 week ago by unlending)
unlending, "everything happens by chance, randomness & without purpose" jtyranus "evolution is a nonrandom process" u r correct, but not according to many evolutionists claiming randomness creates diversity.
"not according to ... ( 1 week ago by damianpoirier)
"not according to many evolutionists claiming randomness creates diversity." keep demostrating how stupid you are. It continues to amuse.
ID is the HEIGHT OF ... ( 6 days ago by moaninglory)
ID is the HEIGHT OF CHRISTIAN DESPERATION, it denies the most fundamental process in nature which is is GENETIC RANDOM MUTATION, the rest is an area of pure mathematics called PROBABILTY, YOU STUPID FOKIN CHRISRTIANS
"but not according ... ( 6 days ago by jtyranus)
"but not according to many evolutionists" if you mean biologists then no that is not true.
retared your this ... ( 6 days ago by RiPHendrix5796)
retared your this read you if
-0R-Or- fi uoy dear sith ruoy derated repost this to a video if u can read it
The "evolving ... ( 6 days ago by reidres)
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.
it is the first of ... ( 6 days ago by damianpoirier)
it is the first of 2 parts. Please continue on to number two.
"As far as ... ( 5 days ago by Onithyr)
"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).
Lol, Creationists! ... ( 5 days ago by Valelacerte)
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!
Weak video argument. ( 4 days ago by bornondate1968)
Weak video argument.
even after reading ... ( 4 days ago by damianpoirier)
even after reading the sidebar?
it is just part of ... ( 4 days ago by inthefade)
it is just part of a larger argument.
Interesting video, ... ( 1 day ago by Cosmodot256)
Interesting video, but I don't think many people are going to get where you're coming from. Maybe just a bit off course.
I see that your ... ( 6 hours ago by machalot)
I see that your next video does exactly that.



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code