Why Intelligent Design is WRONG, Part I

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 tenet 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.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

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

[1tabligh]

@Heinoisurehero We proclaim most affirmatively that the phenomena of creation express and regularity; they do not proclaim purposelessness, anarchy and disorder.

If we are unable to understand the function of a small screw in a great machine, does this give us the right to accuse and condemn its designer as ignorant?

Or is that the horizon of our gaze is too narrow to encompass the true aim and purpose of the machine?

[Heinoisurehero]

@1tabligh there isnt really anything spectacular or unneccesary in nature... if there was a creator you would think he might have some creativity

[FSApetheist]

@qcpatente

So yes your argument is invalid.

[FSApetheist]

@qcpatente

"they recreated"

1. speculation about how the early earth was is not a recreation but a possibility.

2. there is no they for you, there is no intelligence allowed for the atheist. sorry.

[qcpatente]

@FSApetheist actually there is. They recreated the primal condition on Earth, and in 1 week they found organic molecules. So yes, you argument is invalid. Actually it proves that life CAN be formed in the environment on its own

[1tabligh]

The Manifestations of God in Nature!

Is it at all feasible to regard all the precise geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?

When so much planning, thought and precision are needed for man to perform such a task, are not the subtlety, exactitude and orderliness observable in the world a proof of origination deriving from the intelligence, creative planning and far-reaching wisdom of the creator?

[MaximusArurealius]

@PeterKim1230 Until their tests create matter, there's nothing to talk about.

[PeterKim1230]

@MaximusArurealius That's what they're testing in Sweden right now, and theoretically, it is possible to create matter out of nothing. The "God" particle was it?

[MaximusArurealius]

@FSApetheist "5. So if the law of biogenesis cannot be violated then the first cell must have been created, there are only two options"

Occam's Razor proves creation. All logic brings evolution down to only two choices: 1. All things were created by God. 2. All things were created by nothing. Since all the laws of science prove #2 to be pure insanity that only leaves you with #1. God created all things. Nothing is unable to create even the smallest particle of anything.

[FSApetheist]

@MaximusArurealius

great points