Uploaded February 2009 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
This video was originally created by youtube.com/cdk007
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:
mediafire.com/?8vz1jesmyln
If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
mediafire.com/?azkwjyvl5yj
Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.
This video was originally created by youtube.com/cdk007
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:
mediafire.com/?8vz1jesmyln
If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
mediafire.com/?azkwjyvl5yj
Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.








![Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival - Session 1
http://www.thesciencenetwork.org
Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival, the first of The Science Networks annual Beyond Belief symposia, held from November 5 to November 7, 2006, was described by the New York Times, as a free-for-all on science and religion, which seemed at times like the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told. According to participant Melvin Konner, however, the event came to resemble a den of vipers debating the issue, Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?
The event was conceived as a response to the efforts of the Templeton Foundation to reconcile science with religion, according to its underwriter Robert Zeps, who told an interviewer, I am not anti-Templeton in the sense of funding scientists to say mean things about religion. I simply believe that all study should be free of any particular agenda besides learning...Most take the position that the religious right are just nuts who are loud but frankly undeserving of a response...I believe that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and pretty much all of the tech age wealth is firmly on the side of science and they need to step up and say so in a way that is heard by the anti-science lobby.
Many conference participants leveled strong criticism at the activities of the Templeton Foundation, including claims that it attempted to blur the line between science and religion and that it funded garbage research aimed at showing a healing effect of prayer.[1] The conference devoted its final session to the negative effects of introducing religion into medicine. A Templeton spokesperson responded by warning against commercialized ideological scientism, the effort to profit from promoting science as the only guide to truth. Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival - Session 1](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fKyFkAfmwFA/mqdefault.jpg)

