What Kind of Information Does DNA Contain?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ส.ค. 2021
- Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer discusses different kinds of information and explores what kind of information is encoded in our DNA. This talk is from Meyer's online course, "Stephen Meyer Investigates Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design" at DiscoveryU.org. You can sign up for the course at www.discoveryu.org/courses/meyer.
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official TH-cam channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit www.discovery.org/id/
www.evolutionnews.org/
www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Visit other TH-cam channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution: / cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallace: / alfredrwallaceid - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[풀영상] 2024 김연경 초청 세계여자배구 올스타전 "팀 스타 VS 팀 월드" [유료광고 포함] #김연경 #국가대표 #배구 #배구올스타전 #팀스타 #팀월드](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SUKUgH1ltng/mqdefault.jpg)
Very nice ..
The biggest problem with Darwinists is that they do not understand or do not want to understand the basics of mathematics and the laws of probability.
It has everything to do with ‘want’ and nothing with mathematics, logic or their level of intelligence.
This is my conclusion after endless discussions with them.
They literally have nothing to base their claims on. In the end they’ll cling to: ‘we do not yet know’. That is literally where you’ll end up.
Their whole worldview is based on doubt+hope.
But if you ask too pointed of a question or make too specific of an observation, they'll tell that *you don't understand evolution.* It's the standard refrain.
A statistical impossibility is defined as *_“a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument."_* The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more *Rational and Reasonable* to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Furthermore, of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/ 10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more *Rational and Reasonable* to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer while trying to determine the origin of the universe.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely *Irrational and Unreasonable* hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists _‘must’_ believe in and promote because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, Information, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic subjective ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millenia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.
@@KenJackson_US Or redefine atheism as "lack of belief" to shed the burden of proof when confronted with materialistic impossibilities.
Agreed
The world needs Meyer now more than ever
Love your work Stephen Meyer. Don't stop ever.
The Meyer Trilogy makes the solid case for ID.
A reading assignment! OK, I dig out Signature in the Cell and reread Ch.4.
Lol😁
Wonderful lecture👍
Is it? Please, tell me what you learned from it
Im lookimg forward to reading 'Signature in the Cell' 😊
Very articulate and beautiful presentation here Stephen. Further revealing the Mind behind it all.
The conundrum of information in the DNA is more than enough to refute the theory of evolution
That’s why atheists go out of their ways to ignore the obvious existence of information in DNA.
The origin of DNA has nothing to do with evolution. The theory of evolution is totally compatible with a god or gods creating the first life form. Your remark is terribly foolish.
Agreed.
@@shankz8854 not really, outside of micro evolutionary theory is irrational based on the evidence and observable facts.
@@shankz8854 Mr. Smart, the premise of the theory is to disprove design, purpose and to prove randomness. If evolution prove God's existence it defeats its own premise.
Don't use the Shannon argument unless you understand it really well. I tried using it and got my butt handed to me on a spade shovel. Nevertheless, random information, such as Shannon info, doesn't require a specific, functional sequence. Dr. Meyer's discussion here helps clarify the point. A meaningful sequence of information is key to understanding the argument. Complex and specified information is a necessity for DNA, but it must also be functional, while Shannon information doesn't have to have these qualifications.
It's simple. Shannon information can't measure MEANING. There are papers describing that limitation.
@@John-gq7vt at that point if that is what is ultimately required how are we not just voting on facts?
Because its not like peer review is done by some completely impartial mechanism. It's done by people with thier own dispositions, and biases.
So if were voting on facts, that makes it where we can really throw away stuff that may be completely correct, or at least pointing in the right dirrection, all because a majority of the voters didnt favor some of its implications, or something.
Go on Dr Meyers.God bless your great effort to bring out the truth.
Stephen Meyer ... I love that you have taught us so very much. You are a wonderful educator, scientist, philosopher. When I watched this I began thinking about information. I began thinking about the most important information. I thought of John 17:3. I am hoping you spend as much time at reading and understanding the more important information. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
I am proud of all these experts and scientists in their different fields explained and clarify the issue of faith and science..
I LOVE this presentation! Such an interesting topic! ❤️
Wouldn't it be nice if all those "collectivists" would study this.
Well, I think your right, I think of people in prison.. gangs an ya, so called progressives (who are so contrary to His economy). 🍵 (one cup coffee so far 😅) This basically shines the light on the value of life..(its complexity,) the gift and the gift giver! Most wouldn't be doing what their doing if they knew the truth?
Can’t wait to take the course!
Wow, thank you for breaking this down
This is a great video to ponder!
Reading about this is chap 9 of Return of the God Hypothesis. Good stuff!
Amazing as always
Life creates Information, which in turn controls Life. Consequently, DNA contains an analogy of the real world from Life point of view.
Thanks for sharing this information. You are loved.
This is awesome. Keep rocking.
Perfect, thanks for sharing!
Excellent information!
Well presented, thank you.
Reading RotGH right now, interesting book! Especially the parts about functional specificity.
very interesting
Awesome
There is another level here. The information is also contextual in respect to the containing system and subsystems. And following, the information in the subsystems is contextual to the outer system. At some point, it become more and more ridiculous to assert random information and purposeless creation.
Free lectures to go along with the book, talk about value added! I'm reading 'The Return of The God Hypothesis' now another awesome work toward the scientific case for God. As Christians we already know God exists thru faith, however these arguments are very important towards convincing the unbelieving that God is real - the first big faith obstacle for many.
Vidéo très intéressante 😁
God bless you. Keep up the good work. I think we all intuitively know what you mean. When we look at the world, we intuitively recognise living beings and distinguish them from rocks, crystals, water, etc other inanimate matter. Life is structured from a different type of order/information than other inanimate matter. Even if we went to another planet and came accross alien life, I am willing to bet we would be able to instantly recognise it as life because of the type of order/information which life has.
I´m impressed for the complex, improbable and functional information contain in DNA. I think that yes, it is more reasonable to think, that it has been put by a desingning intelligence. I know that a mind can do that. I don´t have any reason to think that nature, without direction, can do that.
That's great. Now you need to identify the specific mind that did it.
@@rubiks6 Our FATHER.
@@lisatruthful1369proof ?
Not great audio! Please improve the SOUND. Thanks.
The term 'Evolution' is so loaded. A mechanism without a mechanism; Causation that is random; explanatory power with no explanation.
Is their a pattern in association to how the double helix is created as if a rotation of some sort is happening between how the helix is created and the sequence of other piece's as if rotating into something let alone the space's between for a chain of events to happen for the rotation and how sections may overlap in some way to show another pattern to some degree when you compare earlier parts to later parts of the DNA strand?
Is it possible to write to Dr Meyer? I have a few questions?
I give you my hat 🧢 professor Meyer ‼️
the important difference is best expressed as 'meaningful', not as 'specified' - information, as per Shannon, could be specified but not meaningful. But meaningful information is always both.
I was always under the impression that shannon information is 'mere complexity' and not 'specified complexity' which would entail meaning or function automatically.
I have your book!
The theory of evolution is based solely on there being time for extremely improbable events to occur. The proponents, however, don't seem to recognize the odds that they need to overcome.
Please educate me. Show your math.
@@noxypoxyroodypoo - If you are really interested in the truth, do your own homework. First, consider the 3 bbbillion bases in our DNA and then consider the many trillions of bases in the DNA of all the various lifeforms on Earth.
There's your starting point. Get to work.
@@noxypoxyroodypoo Well shortest protein we know of has 150 amino acids. There are 20 amino acids, so the order of probability says that it is 20^150. The issue also arises that amino acids can have isomers which means they have different forms. Here amino acids can be left or right handed known as chirality. All amino acids in a functional protein must be left handed, so that entire mess above is squared. So the probability, is one over that crazily big number. Any number that is 1 over the number of elementary particles in the universe which is around 10^120 is considered zero. Even for the smallest protein there is not enough second in the universe even with deep time at 20 billion years to search that space. Then as James Tour says time is not the friend of evolution/abiogenesis as the sugars are much more complex and they are unstable in that they will oxidize and break down quickly. The probability of getting even a single celled organism by random chance is zero.
@@rubiks6 Flip a coin billions of times and whatever sequence of results you get will be highly unlikely. Yet it occurred! The number of base pairs is irrelevant.
And no, it's not my responsibility to prove someone else's argument.
@@kennethgee2004 Clear and concise.
this video coulda used another take or two but regardless very informative.
Indeed. Information has nothing to do with meaning. Something also high ranking scientists have hard times to understand.
how is the internet free?! Invaluable information thank u!
Yes, you are right, information is a measurement of uncertainty reduction. However, Shannon entropy does not measure the amount of information that an event can provide based on its probability, but the amount of uncertainty associated to such an event. Both, Shannon entropy and probability, just provide different ways to measuring uncertainty (at different scales). The difference of uncertainty between a "before" and an "after" is the measurement of the information associated to an event. That is, the amount of information that can be measured associated to a system depends on the system of reference used to measure it, in analogous way to the coordinates of an object in the 3D space depends on where we allocate the origin of the coordinate system. I saw many TH-cam videos from highly relevant physicist with the same biased interpretation. Also, the amount of information that we can measure depends on the nature of the communication system. How much information can be measured in a book of medicine. Well, it depends on the information receiver. For a student of medicine, an MD, and for someone not familiar at all with the technical medical language will be different. Even more, for a bookworm the amount of information will depends on the amount cellulose molecules available in the book.
How might this information that you give here apply with these novel SARS-COV-2 mRNA, and DNA injections? Can the mRNA ( message) effect a functional change to DNA? Can mRNA be used to modify biological function? I haven't read your book, but plan to order it.
What part of the cell reads the DNA?
I get it. Complex specified information comes from a mind; a creator of this communication. My question is how is this information used. If it is computer code of some sort, then where is the computer processor that uses that code? And for that matter, where is the operating system for that computer? And, how does that (or those) computer(s) control the biological machines it communicates with? Could this be a future research project for DI?
Not only for DI, _most_ research in biology is advancing the frontier of what we know. We all have the same evidence. But evidence must be interpreted.
Life does not compute. Life acts by analogy (analog device).
Bioinformatics is the application of computer science to the field of molecular biology.
In Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer wrote about the system in the cell that works with the information it contains.
Programmers use conditional and mathematichal concept to make programs work. Example is our dna have a 4 chemical represent by letters A,C,G and T. the two strand are complementary means whatever there is T in strand there will be an A in opposite side if there is an C in strand there will be a G in opposite side. If we convert this in basic coditional and logical code.
var strand-A:
var strand-B:
if(strand-A == "A" and strand-b == "T" ){
//if above condition is true codes will be executed code here else if false it will skip this block
}
if(strand-A == "G" and strand-b == "C" ){
//if above condition is true codes will be executed the code here else if false it will skip this block
}
and we created information of instruction and compile it to the computer and tell the computer this is my instruction do it. same as DNA replication, enzyme primase as compiler this function make sure that strand is in correct sequence and process will take many conditional statement to make 1 strand of dna.
Complex specific information is found in DNA.
The definition you cite at 9:00 explicitly mentions DNA nucleotides and computer code, but does not mention english letters as you later go on to include.
The difference here is that 'specific effects' is referring to how these things interact with their environment. The effect is 'specific' because it is based on physics, not prearranged knowledge. A certain sequence of computer code will always lead to the same results, a certain string of DNA will always lead to the same results. A certain string of english letters WONT always lead to the same results. If I write 'apple' you and I will both understand what I am talking about, but someone who can't read english won't understand. The effect is dependent on the sender and receiver having some kind of prearranged system in place, so isn't specific.
In fact, to further illustrate this point we can get together and be sneaky. We can prearrange that when I write 'apple' I am actually talking about a banana. So if I write on my shopping list 'Apples' you will know that I intend to buy bananas, but other people will think I mean to buy apples. The effect has entirely changed based on who is writing and reading the text, not based on what the text is. The text itself has no specific effect.
Check your sound.
That such simple concepts must be presented as to children is why these same believe a bucket of dirt, time and sunlight wrote the complete works of Shakespeare;
as well as their confusion of which bathroom to use.
I think all information is Shannon information but consciousness makes it useful.
I really enjoy this concept, it loses me at Christianity but that’s another issue. I would really like to see it put to the rest of debate. Stephen Meyer HAS to debate Dawkins it I can’t get fully behind it.
So without information we have no Life
Yes. Intelligent design argument IS basic to understanding what God is. Obviously, highly intelligent.
information = percise determenation of sequence of amino acids.
What type of information does mRNA popular 'substance' include?
Coin toss has 3 possible outcomes. Landing on its edge is one of them. I have seen it happen more than once. FYI
A simple question. So evolutionist believe that random chemicals, randomly got the right mix in order to randomly make proteins that randomly organized themselves and life randomly manifested with pre programmed DNA so as to constantly copy itself over and over and survive an extremely hostile to life environment until little mutations in the DNA 🧬 allowed the manifested life form to change so as to randomly make all of the different types of complex life forms that we have today?
Luv ya man, but u need to find a good Italian barber! Good advice my Dad gave me!
Imagine what Einstein could have accomplished with a better haircut!
...said no one ever.
If the appearance is more important than the content of the ideas, then there is truly no knowlege transfer. For those people they will just believe and regurgitate whatever they here next from someone who is better dressed. Unfortunately that is a lot of people.
Electromagnetic fields define organs and bodyparts, not the DNA with her construction material assembly instructions.
Too funnny...I was gonna type something very similar as he did!
I am a programmer ...
And evolution theory is illogical and not from our common sense ..
Thank u stephen we are learning from u Mr .. keep going .. u did a great work ..
I just have one hope .. I wish u consider islam .. hope u be a muslim ..
Anyway thanks for the books and knowledge u have given to the world .
You need to watch 'Al Fadi Testimony' TH-cam video.
@@gerardmoloney9979 why what’s it about?
Why is evolution illogical?
I don’t think anyone would disagree that it’s not common sense - that’s why it was only “discovered” in the 19th century.
Salaams bro. Aameen to that.
As a programmer is value your opinion on my video which claims to give a rainfall proof of the quran.
It is related to probabilities etc.
Please watch it and let me know your honest opinion.
It would be great if you could comment on the video thread itself.
Jazakallah khairan
Proof of the divine nature of the quran
th-cam.com/video/P6prC0tDb_8/w-d-xo.html
@@shankz8854
Evolution extrapolates wildly beyond the evidence.
There is no proof that the mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection can produce the examples of exquisite engineering you see everywhere.
Knolwege
What does discovery institute think of Biologos response to this idea. They suggest that the information found in DNA is not like computer code or like language. They suggest this error in thinking is what is leading to Meyer conclusions.
Biologos is dead wrong. The DNA code works according to the same exact principle as the code in the computer called the ASCII code.
Alas, I had written quite a lengthy explanation of the two codes . . . and I should have saved it . . . because when I scrolled back to look at something, I lost it all! I can’t do it all over again.
Biologos simply doesn’t understand what exactly Meyers is comparing to what.
Dawkins once said that some biological entities have an "uncanny" appearance of having been designed. He therefore has no right whatsoever for being angry at me for deciding that YES, living things HAVE been designed. (His anger has actually been a source of embarrassment to atheists.) Dr Meyer used the poetic sentence about tides and time. Dawkins used the sentence "Methinks it is a weasel" and said we can climb up the mountain called improbability by picking letters, in the manner of a game of hang-man, until we get the weasel sentence. Dawkins' example or analogy is outstandingly stupid. The sentence chosen presumes the PRE-EXISTENCE of a language and a grammar, in order to make sense as a sentence to us. As explained by James Tour, the evolutionists are very very far away from explaining the spontaneous beginning of life. As stated by Dr Berlinski, the complexity within a single cell is "galactic", it is so complex it is difficult to fully understand it all from a mechanistic point of view, people spend their lives at it and understand some of it. I am not even much interested any more in arguing about the problems that evolution has at a macro scale, I need not expend the energy. DNA (and the cell) could not have arisen by itself, no matter how much time nature 'stirred' a solution containing carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and a plethora of trace minerals (such as selenium, pls don't forget the selenium, without the selenium my hair all falls out).
I don't have a degree in anything, but, it seems to me, there can be no other explanation for a living cell than creation by a creator. How can a living cell posessing a cell wall encompassing all the bio machinery in the cell, plus having a metabolism, reproductive system, and ability to heal appear all at once by merely natural processes? It has to be created by an all powerful Creator.
I've listened to Tour. He won't say it in so many words while talking only science, but he makes it known it's impossible for molecules to form on a prebiotic earth by themselves and then form a cell. And getting the molecules would be the easy part. The matter is secondary, the information is primary. Mindless stuff never produces information. Information requires thought and imagination.
Well said.
The theory of evolution makes too many assumptions.
Methinks Dawkins is a weasel.
He certainly has a right to be angry at you for ignoring the massive amounts of evidence for evolution and deciding life is designed because it seems that way to you. If it uncannily appears that different species share a common ancestor, will you accept that? If it uncannily appears that environmental pressure selects certain traits to be inherited, will you accept that?
As to Dawkin's analogy, you appear to have missed the point. The pre-existing language or grammar is analogous to the pre-existing environment which determines the fitness of the organism. A biological trait only has function within a specific environmental context, just a sentence only has meaning within a specific language.
As to James Tour, he has been publicly embarrassed multiple times by actual experts in biological chemistry pointing out his misrepresentations of their field. I suggest you check out the Professor Dave Explains channel for an in depth explanation of his many mistakes. For example, no one claims that DNA and the cell arose randomly, rather much simpler precursors to them arose randomly and then developed by chemical evolution into much more complex forms. See the work of Dr. Jack Szostak for more.
@Jeff You didn't actually argue against my point. If one can conclude that life is designed because it appears that way, one can conclude it evolved because it appears that way. There are several important differences beyond mere appearances. Evolution is actually observable, the supposed designer is not. Evolution is consistent with all observations, a designer is not. For example, why would a designer design species to be infected by thousands of retroviral insertions in the exact same positions? Makes no sense. Makes perfect sense if they inherited the retroviral insertions from a common ancestor. And if a designer is not necessary to explain why species appear the way they do, then what use is it as a theory? It's extraneous.
@@scottb4579cell is a living thing can can reproduce ,can adapt to the changing environment condition.Its not a non living object that needs to be created from outside.
I prefer John Lennox's semiotics argument.
I guess in Evolution it somehow arranged itself.. (much like throwing a bunch of parts in your driveway will arrange a car somehow) or maybe an alien arranged the nucleotide bases before planting the first cell on planet earth...
Um... so your not going to mention the 100s of 1000s papers that literally use information theory to demonstrate how evolution by natural selection works?
And this does not even include the incredibly complexed information carried by carbohydrates.
Where is a creation, there’s a creator period
Is this far off from comprehension: if you have a chain of carbons, with O, H, and N's, say a chain 20 carbons long, it's a chain of elements. If you strung out a chain long enough to be a DNA length, it still is elements. Life gives you the actual functions we observe in life?
So essentially like he is saying about letters. You can have a sentence like this one here, but it is the understanding of the words and knowing the meaning of meaning that laying out the letters to spell meaning would not have, as they are just letters.
Nadji me u jurskom dobu
Kako hodam prasumom s cigarom u ustima
Odjeven u futuristicki egzoskeleton
Model opremljen bezbrojem funkcija
Posjecujem prapovjest
Turisticki
Postajem nevidljiv ko predator
Ako naletim na predatore
better call saul??
As a c++ game developer i agree. When i created a chareacter i need to make sure that charcater have functions like it can move the body in the hard surface, detect collision and make sure have gravity in game to make this work we use algebra and analytic geometry formula and thousand of complix of codes must be executed. I think our DNA was more complex than my codes lol. as a creator, logically its really hard to imagine that us have a complex component is generated only with nothing.
We serious flawed defintions of species . Human dna is to jessy and complex in the archaic . But we can point to all our common isogensis great x 250 genrations ago Ancestor eve. This relatively recent. This is where we can name our family . This should be a field of study of its own with our own modern label and named species.
Its so much 100 million year evidence of specie stasis that evolutionary Darwinist need to be forced into explaining many orgins and primordial soups .
This probability is already so infinity large in fine tuning in one random primordial soups but now the evidence is to strong to argue for 1 event.
They must explain countless of these events happening many times over to me
BNGO$
Consciousness, inc/information, is a unique activity of the brains of some living organisms. It is not in concrete reality. DNA has certain material properties. Information is not one of them. Information is the consciousness of reality. Consciousness, inc/information, has unique properties, eg, wittiness. DNA cannot be witty. DNA, like all matter, has certain properties, eg, size? What is the size of your memory of todays breakfast.
so at what point did god put us together? When in time? Asking as a theist.
I don't know if anyone knows for sure, right now its a guess 200-400 thousand years ago, although i've hear some say millions, there are many theories about genetic manipulation (God or ET), it would have to be across a whole population, the problem is the longer ago something was, the less evidence there is, and the more assumptions that have to be made, you'd have to understand how the spirit interacts with the physical, the spirit manipulates the DNA to be 'human' so the spirit can incarnate, God created the species in whole, in the spirit world(which is considered the 'real world' from their point of view), from which they interact with this world to create life and bodies to incarnate into
Just 50 years ago most of us would have answered that it is obvious based on information in Genesis as well as a few other chapters in the bible that use genealogy to track the passage of time. But now when you ask that question more than half will say something else, as mentioned by the previous poster. As much as it runs contrary to the mass majority opinion right now, I tend to swing with the young earth thing because of this.
DNA points to a designer. God.
Like it or not
Why mix probability with information? Information can be about an event; an event can have probabilities. Is gibberish information? Gibberish only represents itself as gibberish, with no information. I have asked Darwinists to give an example of naturally occurring information beside DNA, or RNA. The Darwinist will only say that DNA or RNA are naturally occurring by probability, which Meyer hands them as a given because he accepts Shannon’s definition.
And then how those monkeys claim that God doesn’t exist while that only 4 simple components constitute DNA that contains unlimited amount of more complex, precise, discovered and undiscovered information about a living being
Well, no
We study genetic, we hate math, that’s we chose chose genetic in the first place
We need to investigate how nature created DNA. A human dump would be like a code of the development of that civilisation and could be used by a new civilisation to advance much quicker. Was DNA once a dump of what was happening and later became a code.
We not not assume "nature created," as we already know there is no creative mechanism in nature. Natural law dictates you cannot go from a genetic "dump" to genetic order later. All matter, genetic and otherwise, deteriorates and disorganization increases over time.
@@leroybrown9143 I've just showed you how a dump can be a blueprint for a new civilisation. The next civilisation might create a better dump in chronological order for a future civilisation. We just need to figure out how a code could form. A dump is a code which was not planned initially but might become a standard for all civilisations. We use them all the time to figure out how humans developed. I don't believe in Darwin's evolution but I think the universe could be intelligent from our limited perspective at this moment in time.
@@MichaelHarrisIreland. "figure how a code and how humans developed." duh! Did you or do you even listen to what Steve and Co say? Codes demand a mind, intelegence, period. Do a crash course in bio chemistry
@@ralphgoreham3516 Functional genetic code doesn't demand intelligence, only an environment that selects the most functional codes out of a random group and allows them to propagate. It's shocking how creationists still don't understand what they're arguing against after all these years.
You got a thumbs-down, not from an atheist, but from a Christian who believes that God is well capable of designing the process of evolution without having to supernaturally interfere from time to time to manufacture "irreducible" complex structures and other novelties.
God could have put his “signature in the cell” but he didn’t write a book or doesn’t speak ANY intelligible information to us today.
No one says He wrote a book. The Bible was written by divine inspiration. Please don't confuse *_religion_* with the Bible or Creation.
"For the word of God is living and active..." (Hebrews 4:12)
At 6:05 You confuse complexity of an expression with improbability of randomly generating the expression. They have little to do with each other. For example, 20 heads is just as improbable as any other sequence of 20 coin flips, but is less complex than most of them.
You also misrepresent Crick when you imply he is contradicting Shannon and claim he is talking about the information being functional. His description is simply about DNA putting amino acids in a specific order, not the amino acid order having a specific function. His description says nothing about function and completely agrees with Shannon's measure of information. You seem to be projecting your own beliefs into Crick's words, where they don't actually exist.
As to your main point, your definition of information is completely dependent on the context in which the information is received. To use language as an analogy, a sentence in English may have plenty of meaning for an English speaker but no meaning for a non-English speaker. So is the sentence both designed and not designed, depending on the person reading it? Similarly, a protein in one environment may have plenty of function, but in another environment have no function. So is it designed or not? Seems to be an unreliable measure of design, since design either occurred at the creation of the information or it didn't. It doesn't depend on the context the information is in now. You have failed to explain why function in some context can only come about by design. Why can't it come about by evolution, by the environment molding randomly created information (in the non-functional sense) to its context? I doubt you will ever be able to answer this, in the coming videos or elsewhere.
It’s utter nonsense to believe that complex biomolecules self-formed and self-aggregated into complex interdependent purposeful pathways, with control mechanisms for their production and reproduction in various cells that are entirely differentiated into various purposeful cell types.
You can’t get biomolecules to form in an abiotic environment. They just don’t form abiogenetically. It’s insane to believe that they do. The chicken/egg problem is present in a million ways, every step of the way.
@@sliglusamelius8578 Yes, it's utter nonsense. It's also a strawman. The actual argument is that simple molecules formed simple proto-cells exhibiting basic behaviors like replication and competition. Once this was in place, chemical evolution occurred. Look up the work of Dr. Jack Szostak for example: th-cam.com/video/lQrCsPrh11M/w-d-xo.html
Many biomolecules are formed naturally, including nucleotides. We've known this since the 50s. Your argument is a bit stale.
Bad analogy. Dna isn't a computer code. Do computer reproduce?
Stephen, explaining evolution using philosophy is misleading your viewers.
This video highlights multitude of problems with Darwinism. Say the first DNA molecule appears in some quasi-random fashion in some primordial "chemical soup". It's a stretch, but let's assume that. Let's then compare it to a book written in an unknown language explaining how to build a photon engine. I am the cell (where I am from is another problem of chicken and egg) and I look at this "book" of jibberish and have no clue what it says or what I am to do with it. I also do not know what an engine is, or that I am supposed to build one. I do not know what tools are at my disposal or what materials i need to use. I just respond to stimulae. I have no slightest idea how to change the text to make it better, or that it is a text. I don't know why I should care about this "thing" since I have no awareness of my existence, or of anything existing inside or outside of me. So one question is how does the text know what I can understand, or how to activate me, what tools I have and what materials are at my disposal? Another is HOW does the text change so that I can read it? More importantly WHY does it care at all about changing if there's no intentional action suggesting awareness at the molecular level? WHO changes it then? It's a hundred thousand pages long text all written in enigmatic symbols. And each cell in the body reads a different set of "chapters" from this text. And they all have to know which chapters to read and which NOT to read, and to understand exactly what they must do AND what they must NOT do. And the instructions must fit the tools and the materials at hand. And after the piecemeal work is done, it ALL has to fit together perfectly at the right time and place. That's when the Darwinian theory of random changes hits the probability bomb which blasts it out of the available time scale in the universe. Or else we haven't understood anything yet about the role and place of consciousness in nature. Wouldn't the existence of such text require a Mind who would understand the concept of the photon engine? Can a book on how to build one be written totally randomly by someone who doesn't understand what he is trying to achieve? Anyway, the RoGH is on my desk and I have just received a strong stimulus to read it. Good job Dr Meyer! :)
I don't understand, do you think cells predate DNA? I don't think any biologist claims that, quite the opposite. The proto-cell predates DNA. The first genetic material was self-replicating and ligating polymer strands that occur naturally and could have been protected by fatty acid bilayers. No transcription of the genetic material was needed because it served both as the informational and functional mechanism of the proto-cell. See the work of Dr. Jack Szostak.
We discovered this amazing nucleotide sequence and the alpha-L-aminoacid alphabet, yet atheist keep screaming: “There’s no information. Where’s the evidence for God? I am willing to believe everything, just prove it to me”.
Who’s is saying “there’s no information”?”
I would have two questions for you:
1. How does stereospecific building blocks of proteins prove god?
2. What do you mean by god? How do you define god?
Keep on Lying…. I mean telling yourself….
it only look’s engineered….