The video is funny because, despite all the science (well, mostly basic math) mumbo-jumbo, the author advertises his own ignorance on the subject matter at hand right there in the title. "Mathematical impossibility of evolution". I'm sure the author meant "improbability", because that is what his argument amounts to. Still false, but less so.
Other than that, it's clear that the author doesn't understand evolution very well. Evolution is not random; mutation is. Not all molecules in the DNA structure are shuffled in a mutation; larger building blocks are (in some cases, whole sections of code). Not all combinations are tried; nor do they have to be. I could go on, but what's the point?
To keep things simple, evolution basically amounts to the following.
1) Children take to their parents, but are slightly different.
2) Those differences might influence their odds of survival.
3) If and when they survive, they might have children of their own.
4) goto 1.
That is all. If you think one through three are true, you believe in "Evolution".
The premise underpinning the math is flawed. No use in trying to get the numbers right.
Other than that, it's clear that the author doesn't understand evolution very well. Evolution is not random; mutation is. Not all molecules in the DNA structure are shuffled in a mutation; larger building blocks are (in some cases, whole sections of code). Not all combinations are tried; nor do they have to be. I could go on, but what's the point?
To keep things simple, evolution basically amounts to the following.
1) Children take to their parents, but are slightly different.
2) Those differences might influence their odds of survival.
3) If and when they survive, they might have children of their own.
4) goto 1.
That is all. If you think one through three are true, you believe in "Evolution".
The premise underpinning the math is flawed. No use in trying to get the numbers right.
