RC Sproul sits down with Stephen Meyer, author of the book, "Signature in the Cell", and they discuss philosophy, evolution, education, Intelligent Design, and more.
Can someone please explain how random mutation and natural selection can account for the information requirements in a simple cell (without using profanity)?
There is no conflict. Information of the highest order and complexity is clear in DNA. Information has ALWAYS been traced back to a mind/intelligence. Some in the scientific community may simply hope it goes away - BUT it is there.
how come people don't get the difference between chemistry and information ? it's like the difference between the ink and paper in a book on one hand and the written story in that book on the other.
Sorry, I have not read books on evolutionary genetics, as I am relatively new to this discussion. If you recommend one that addresses this issue specifically, I'd appreciate it. What I have done is listened to and / or viewed numerous debates on this topic, and NONE of the leading evolutionists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Jeannie Scott, to name a few) can ever provide an explanation as to the origin of genetic information. Is there an evolutionary explanation?
Could you say which article and which peers? Unless he's single handedly come up with something radically better than any previous ID support, its not really science because it sets out to prove something from the get go instead of trying to find out how things work. Its a cop out and its a theory that doesn't make predictions of how things work. So far I have not heard this guy support ANY of his theories in this video.
I see the phrase 'peer review' here several times. What peers, lets see if this article of his has really passed the test and scrutiny of the scientific community. He's 'dropped a bombshell??? (3:45). According to who? Its too easy to come up with some loonie idea, and when nobody takes it seriously turn around and say its a conspiracy against you.
Then how come science hasn't concluded the same as only those who, coincidently, have a need to believe in god as a creator? Hmmm... Seems to me, a conflict of interest.
can you tell me where you've looked? presumably you can list some books on evolutionary genetics that you've read in vain looking for the explanation you claim to be looking for. can you?
the 4 character digital code in DNA that determines the sequence of genes. I have yet to see an explanation from an evolutionary perspective of how this code, and the subsequent sequencing of genes, resulted from "random mutation and natural selection". If you have one, please provide. Thanks
I'd like to see the peer review on this. That is how real science works... and the fact he is making these claims without a peer review just shows the lack of credibility to his "science".
What is the basic unit of life, the most foundational thing we can point to and call it life? The cell. A cell must be able to reproduce itself. Now the first cell would not only have to, without relying on its creation from a previous cell, assemble itself in such a way as to be complete, and then store all the instructions for how to reproduce itself inside DNA (which it also must have the ability to create within itself). And then it has to have all the parts and the ability to actually use that information in its DNA to reproduce itself. And then it must actually reproduce to even begin speaking of the possibility of evolutionary changes. Now, think about what constitutes the most basic of cells, and then tell me what happens when you remove various components of that cell from it. I.e. the mitochondria. Or the nucleus. Or the Golgi Apparatus. Or the cell membrane. Etc. What happens? Can it survive? Can it reproduce itself in this state? And how does this cell gradually build all of the essential components for itself - starting from literally nothing - before dying?
![ผัวเถื่อน - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P08ORRVDGl8/mqdefault.jpg)
the bible says that the carnal mind is hostile toward god, they don't want to retain god in their knowledge.
Can someone please explain how random mutation and natural selection can account for the information requirements in a simple cell (without using profanity)?
Well, I'd ask your question in some atheist forums.
There is no conflict.
Information of the highest order and complexity is clear in DNA.
Information has ALWAYS been traced back to a mind/intelligence.
Some in the scientific community may simply hope it goes away - BUT it is there.
This is utter nonsense. Who are you referring to in the sciences?
Believe in the sripture
how come people don't get the difference between chemistry and information ? it's like the difference between the ink and paper in a book on one hand and the written story in that book on the other.
Sorry, I have not read books on evolutionary genetics, as I am relatively new to this discussion. If you recommend one that addresses this issue specifically, I'd appreciate it. What I have done is listened to and / or viewed numerous debates on this topic, and NONE of the leading evolutionists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Jeannie Scott, to name a few) can ever provide an explanation as to the origin of genetic information. Is there an evolutionary explanation?
No.
@@ryangrone8750yes
What is it?
Could you say which article and which peers? Unless he's single handedly come up with something radically better than any previous ID support, its not really science because it sets out to prove something from the get go instead of trying to find out how things work. Its a cop out and its a theory that doesn't make predictions of how things work. So far I have not heard this guy support ANY of his theories in this video.
I see the phrase 'peer review' here several times. What peers, lets see if this article of his has really passed the test and scrutiny of the scientific community. He's 'dropped a bombshell??? (3:45). According to who? Its too easy to come up with some loonie idea, and when nobody takes it seriously turn around and say its a conspiracy against you.
that is merely your uninformed opinion.
It would be no different to say
Evolution= Philosophical Naturalism= Atheism= autonomy
Then how come science hasn't concluded the same as only those who, coincidently, have a need to believe in god as a creator? Hmmm... Seems to me, a conflict of interest.
can you tell me where you've looked? presumably you can list some books on evolutionary genetics that you've read in vain looking for the explanation you claim to be looking for. can you?
@gregrutz I would hope your argument FOR evolution is better than your assessment of systematic theology.
The reason we don't teach Intelligent Design in school, is the same reason we don't teach about Bigfoot and Leprechauns- no evidence.
If that's the case why do you teach macro evolution? By that logic that is.
the 4 character digital code in DNA that determines the sequence of genes. I have yet to see an explanation from an evolutionary perspective of how this code, and the subsequent sequencing of genes, resulted from "random mutation and natural selection". If you have one, please provide. Thanks
"the 4 character digital code in DNA that determines the sequence of genes."- no it doesn't. This is nonsense.
You showed him.
Great word. Thank you
@vozuluzov what info creates the mutation
As far as I know, mutations occur naturally but are not intended.
They are accidents, errors that occur when DNA is being copied
I'd like to see the peer review on this. That is how real science works... and the fact he is making these claims without a peer review just shows the lack of credibility to his "science".
ryguyer really? What if the peers won’t even consider the idea?
what do you mean by information? the chemistry of the cell required no supernatural explanation.
mcmanustony it’s been 7 years now. Do you still have the same opinion?
Information cannot be created without a creator. It is impossible to for it to have evolved.
@@asmith7094 yes. do you have evidence to change it?
@@voicevitality7197 Why? because you say so? This is simply a slogan- not a conclusion reached by observation.
@@mcmanustony No. I don't say so. It's actually a fact.
Frame-shifting is just one explanation of how mutations create new information in the DNA. Meyer should know this.
What is the basic unit of life, the most foundational thing we can point to and call it life?
The cell.
A cell must be able to reproduce itself.
Now the first cell would not only have to, without relying on its creation from a previous cell, assemble itself in such a way as to be complete, and then store all the instructions for how to reproduce itself inside DNA (which it also must have the ability to create within itself). And then it has to have all the parts and the ability to actually use that information in its DNA to reproduce itself. And then it must actually reproduce to even begin speaking of the possibility of evolutionary changes.
Now, think about what constitutes the most basic of cells, and then tell me what happens when you remove various components of that cell from it. I.e. the mitochondria. Or the nucleus. Or the Golgi Apparatus. Or the cell membrane. Etc.
What happens? Can it survive? Can it reproduce itself in this state? And how does this cell gradually build all of the essential components for itself - starting from literally nothing - before dying?