Why Intelligent Design is WRONG, Part II

Make sure you watch "Why Intelligent Design is WRONG" before watching this video. Here I simulate evolution without the use of a goal image as in Part I.

This time fitness is determined based on a two part mathematical function. It is analogous to an animal's behavior evolving to balance its need to find food and find mates (really can't do both at the same time, well, not effectively) or a seal's flipper evolving to be both good on land and in the sea. Here the function pulls the organisms in two directions.

The combination of random mutations with survival of the fittest drives the population to an extremely improbable solution, but one with very good fitness. And this is what I am trying to show, that random mutations and recombination combined with survival of the fittest will weed out the best organisms (those that seem perfectly designed for their environment) leading to extremely complex and highly improbable outcomes in only a few generations.

This video does not attempt to prove ID wrong or Evolution correct. It merely attempts to point out that the central claim of ID is wrong.

To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?6bncne30dcm

If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
http://www.mediafire.com/?etazd2gthyw

Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• Intelligent
• Design
• Wrong
• Debate
• Evolution
• Simulation
• Creationism
• Natural
• Selection
• ID
• Education
• Data
• Experiment
• Facts

[Ja2so4]

Do not get this team ALLAH. You should stop killing civilians and begin to educate ourselves. You have no right to talk about science or anything that has to do with the brain. Whatever the story you just say Allah, Allah, Allah. Trying to present a culture but actually you maltretrate and disenfranchise women and children all have different opinions than you. You should be cut off because you're dead branches in the evolution čoviječanstva.

[Vampirosaurusrex]

@ungenanntopffl Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning that in all reality it is fact. It has been tested, undergone tests, all of the possible things to disprove it, and ended up being true. It is a fact, but scientific theories can be facts. The same monkey which humans descended from no longer do exist, but broke off into many species. Chimpanzees and Humans came from the same ancestor. Atheists don't condone sex with non-humans. Human's are apes whether you like it or not, it's fact.

[Drgamedood]

@ungenanntopffl Learn what theory means in science. Ignorant moron.

[ungenanntopffl]

If man came from apes like Lemurs then why are there still monkeys like chimps still around ? My father was a man of god and not a dirty animal. Everyone is like a flame that be lit for ever in the face of god in his dream and will.

evolution is just a theory meaning it is an unproven and unaccepted guess made by the elite that call them self scientist so they can bend the moral will of the people of god.

Satan and you will not trick the open minded people into breeding with apes.

Love ALLAH

[irhjma30000]

@TennisAnnalyst Did you NOT get my comment before? You have been talking on and on and I haven't been reading anything because you keep commenting, and I have no idea where your comments all are or what they are even replying to.

[irhjma30000]

@TennisAnnalyst Ok. First of all, I see that you have commented to me a huge amount of times. I would ask, if you're going to try to describe anything to me, please do it over messaging as it's getting extremely confusing trying to find all of your comments and deciphering which reply goes with which comment.

[irhjma30000]

@irhjma30000 They dupe the general public into thinking that any observable change in any organism proves that all life has evolved from the first one-celled creature

[irhjma30000]

@TennisAnnalyst Natural selection has never been observed to create new types. Yet macroevolution is exactly what Darwinists claim from the data. They say that these observable micro changes can be extrapolated to prove that unobservable macroevolution has occurred. They make no distinction between micro and macro, and thus use the evidence for micro to prove macro.

[irhjma30000]

@SergeiTheAnarch how was I being a douche? if I was, I wasn't trying to. I've had a long day. undoubtedly Darwin's theory states that small changes become big changes, but among other things that it doesn't explain, it still doesn't explain how those changes, no matter how big or small, can occur across a species. those types of changes have not been proven or observed at all.

[SergeiTheAnarch]

@irhjma30000 all you had to do was answer the question... not be a douche about it. and... no. small changes become big changes. a gunshot for example a small adjustment of aim for a target at 100 meters will result in a huge change on a target at 500