Information Enigma: Where does information come from?

[@TheHarmonicaMusician]

Although the probability argument does seem like a devastating blow to the neo-Darwinian paradigm in regards to protein evolution, there is actually a much more significant and deeper problem than what the video here implies in terms of statistics. This problem is so devastating that even if one assumed that unguided and undirected evolutionary processes were capable of overcoming the odds of what geneticist like Douglas Axe here suggested, such assumption actually won't be enough to resolve the whole protein evolution dilemma. This problem has already been well scientifically established, although the problem is generally overlooked, known as protein denaturation. Protein denaturation is a destructive process in which proteins lose their stable 3rd dimensional protein fold structure caused by various factors. These factors or conditions are 1) strong acidity or base 2) concentrated inorganic salt 3) radiation & 4) heat exposure. Denaturation is very bad for proteins, given that they destroy their tertiary and quaternary structure. Protein structure, just like amino acid sequencing, is very important in order for the polymer to function properly. Thus, in order for the proteins to actually fold and continue functioning properly at all, they must be set under certain stable environmental conditions. Too much of those conditions would cause those proteins to denature and be rendered completely useless, even if the amino acid sequencing and fold turned out to be right after all. Denaturation is also a problem too when it comes to DNA & RNA. However, there is an even deeper problem than what I just suggested earlier. Contrary to what the majority might fail to realize, proteins don't actually last very long, even if they were under perfect conditions where denaturation is unlikely to occur. Over time they begin to get damaged and eventually hit to the point where they cease to exist. So even if one assumed that a functional protein miraculously popped out of nature despite all the overwhelming 99.99% hopeless odds, it would eventually die out at some point of time. Thus, in order for the protein's function to remain beneficial and be selected by natural selection, it would need to self-replicate somehow. Yet, proteins themselves don't self-replicate, but rather get replaced by new proteins manufactured by the cell. Yet, in order for this to happen, there must already be special enzymes, ribosomes, and other forms of cellular machinery all made up of already existing proteins and special RNA molecules. This is where the chicken and egg problem fall in. Hence, it's not just the statistics that delivers a big slap to the face those that are against the idea of intelligent design, but also the laws of physics as well. Neither do the abstract models of mathematics nor the behavior of physics comply with the orthodox of neo-Darwinian theory. Of course, while there are people that want to strongly believe that all of these can be explained under self-organization processes as a means to refute intelligent design, the greatest irony about their self-organization theories is that they already rely and pre-suppose already pre-existing genetic information. There is no theory that can explain the information enigma better than intelligent design.

[@yoda9824]

It's not only the information. It's also the impossibility of a cell to self assemble from scratch

[@jpbrooks2]

I agree. Even though I remain open-minded enough to accept the possibility that some variety of (Theistic) Evolution might be true, I view Abiogenesis as considerably more problematic than Evolution. JPB

[@orthodoxnet9677]

Exactly!! What intelligent force reads this information and coordinates this process in every single cell in every single living thing on earth? The Eternal Logos (Jesus Christ) of course. The ONE who created and sustains it all.

[@RodMartinJr]

That nailed it! 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@RodMartinJr]

@@TrevoltIV When you view scripture through *_SPIRIT,_* you see that Genesis 1-3 was *_before_* space-time and energy-mass existed. For Genesis 2 tells us that Adam would surely die on the day that he "ate" the forbidden fruit. Yet, Genesis 5 tells us that Adam lived for 930 years -- most or all of it after the Garden. Adam died as spirit (Genesis 1.26), and only later the eponymous tribe of Adam died as dust (Genesis 2.7). What was the forbidden fruit? The name tells us a great deal: Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In other words, the *_Tree of Dichotomy._* Heaven has no dichotomy; only perfection. Adam consuming the template of dichotomy instantiated (manifested) dichotomy -- action-reaction, good-evil, love-hate, hot-cold, wisdom-stupidity, compassion-indifference, etc. Thus, ALL of the animal and plant deaths of the deterministic, dichotomous universe, came AFTER Adam consumed the product of the dichotomy template. Perhaps that was the Big Bang, itself -- the beginning of Space-Time, Energy-Mass. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@RodMartinJr]

@@orthodoxnet9677 Adam was the image of God's Word (Logos). And Christ Jesus was the First to return to Heaven of the many pieces of Adam which became embedded in the action-reaction (good-evil) universe. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@jackt4274]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. God is the source of the information, the wisdom and the knowledge.

[@simonmasters3295]

Oh FFS... I know the words have resonance, but what do they actually say?

[@onestepaway3232]

Information always comes from a mind.

[@hermanhalici1]

Message of the Video is ..... God created and designed everything. Nothing , I mean nothing happens outside of his will and by chance.

[@stykface]

Great video. Another point to add regarding the combination lock: The combination lock is using ten numbers... 0-9 to be exact. This is syntax. Syntax is a precursor to information. Syntax in and of itself requires design. For instance, the four base T's in DNA. This is syntax. How do the nucleotides "know" what they are in the four character GACT sequence? They can't possibly know. An example is this.... say you have a box of 100 magnetic refrigerator magnets. You dump them out on the floor and they "arrange" themselves to spell out a paragraph. Most evolutionist will say that's entirely possible. Now, let's say you have a box of 2,000 small spherical pellets. You dump them out on the floor, and they "arrange" themselves to spell out the same paragraph, at approximately 20 pellets per alphanumeric character. Now this is very different. You see in the first example, all the alphanumeric characters were "predefined". This is syntax. But how does a single pellet know to rearrange itself next to another pellet, to collectively create a letter "A" and then to do it further down the sequence line (the exact shape, angle, direction and amount of pellets)? It doesn't. It can't. Only an intelligent agent can form syntax, the precursor to intelligence to begin with.

[@Manuzoka1996]

+Tannar Frampton Great Commentary!

[@stykface]

Louis Charles Morelli This is not a good analogy at all. All matter is a substantiation of metaphysical natural laws. So water flowing down a river is actually not as blind as you may think, since inconceivable amount of natural laws are in place underneath it all. These metaphysical laws must come from somewhere. But to refute your response directly I would say that you're certainly wrong regarding syntax. This is true because we have discovered that DNA is code. It's code that is so far advanced, it took human engineers and computers powerful enough to even be able to analyze it. All code must have a syntax. Syntax is the first and foremost thing you need for code to work. If you study up on informatics, which is the science of information, you would know this. The very comments you and I are exchanging with have a 26 character syntax called the English Alphabet. This doesn't include spaces and punctuation or arrangement (direction, grouping, etc). Syntax must be in place for information to arise, for if code has no defined characters, then no information can come of it. DNA is a miraculous code that is inconceivable by even human intelligence and engineers and forgive me in advance for not believing this is a "random" act of blind matter. I'm simply following logic here. -T

[@omranmuhamed2296]

The best short comment I don't have enough faith to be an atheist

[@peytonmanning1452]

Life at the molecular level can only be truly understood within the conceptual framework of *_INFORMATION PROCESSING,_* which in turn can only be truly understood within the conceptual framework of *_INTELLIGENCE._* This is a straightforward, evidence-based *affirmative argument.*

[@peytonmanning1452]

ExtantFrodo2: "That accumulation of such abilities over 3.5 billion years amounts to a huge pile of abilities is not astonishing." *Argument from personal incredulity.* And the starting point of babbelution supposedly has to do with changes in *information.* Life is all about information. Life is all about information. Life is all about information. Life is all about information. Life is all about information. Life is all about information.

[@VirtuelleWeltenMitKhan]

You should look up Prions. Devastating to our brains but they just exist. In the end your brain is just chemistry and if the wrong Prion comes around you will die.

[@BenGLastreezy]

Saying that Matter can cause information to arise is like saying that if i build my HD and put there for millions of years is going to generate every app that you see in the PC today! People believe some weird stuffs don't they?

[@caitlinrose3572]

As an electronics engineer, designer and multiple patent holder, biologists astound me. Teams of my folk toil for years to conceive, design and test to produce a working product. Yet as soon as we turn to biologic evolution, one is expected to throw out all practicality and observation at the feet of naturalism. Biologists need to understand the un-understandable, that is, they are faced with a level of complexity outside the realm of human capability to understanding it. Face up to it; reason and logic drives us to admit that what we observe in life is best described as intelligence acting on matter, like us engineers...!

[@Hannodb1961]

2 years later, and where are the Darwin trolls in the comment sections? It seems like you can only scream against reason for so long.

[@KanizFatema-d2c]

5t5

[@saeefullahmohammad1402]

Dont know if someone commented this already but the bike theif scenario goes further, it didn't take into account duplicate combinations. The theif would have a notebook so he doesn't enter the same combination twice, but nature has no such thing. Nature could duplicate the combination numerous times. Could go on for infinity. Oh and the theif would have to do it blindfolded to mimick what nature would have gone through

[@Dr_Diaz]

They mentioned a hypothetical scenario in which the thief was basically perfect at it...

[@sum2automation]

It just maybe as St Francis found: " What's looking is what your looking for" Awesome upload, Thank you for your hard work. I do hope mankind wakes up before it's way to late and we blow ourselves up. Life is so amazing, I see it as miracle beyond words.

[@ConflagrationClone]

Praise God!

[@MonzaSSguy]

It appears that in evolution, Darwin actually discovered a maintenance system rather than a creative system. Naturally occurring genetic variation allows all life forms to survive and adapt through time, to cope with environmental changes. Without these slight genetic variations, life would have been a rigid formula, unable to adapt and would have died out many millennia ago.

[@WizzRacing]

+MonzaSSguy What you just described is Mendels Laws and gene expression. And Darwin had no idea of what Mendel had discovered even when he was given papers on the study. As Darwin thought math and numbers was boring and never read it. Also genetic information is not a top up solution as each pairs offspring have their genetic information turned off or on. So the information is always their. So if the environment changes those with the right genetics turned on will survive. Those that didn't will disappear but when the conditions change which can support the species they will once again remain. But the information in the genetic cell is always there. It's why all species can exist. As it is very flexible to changes without losing whole species forever. I might add Time has no affect on an outcome, As it doesn't cause anything to happen. You need something acting on it.

[@WizzRacing]

ExtantFrodo2 Yea.. I think I know what it is as I actually read books on the subject. You might try and stick to the subject. There has been not one species ever change from one phylum to a total new one ever been observed coming into existence. Not one record of it recorded in the fossil layers. You can't even reproduce the results in a lab with someone guiding it. So don't try the magic pixie dust words like beneficial mutations. When the grown ups are discussing the beginning of life. Not after its here all ready.

[@WizzRacing]

ExtantFrodo2 Why you can't just duplicate an existing protein chain and make minor changes to the instructions to get an affective functional protein. As they tried at an early stage and the protein chain was destroyed or aborted at the cell division stage. They tried later stages and they got dysfunctional organs, or missing parts all together. Just to name some of the issues.

[@WizzRacing]

ExtantFrodo2 Look idiot. To get one functional protein with someone guiding is like impossible. As the change has to have an end result that is not only useful but none destructive to the original protein that exist already. As the species counts on that protein function to even exist much less make repairs to stay alive. As I don't want a foot where my eye should be!

[@WizzRacing]

ExtantFrodo2 Yea I think you should. As not a damn thing you said is scientific. You give science a bad name for one, As you believe in magic dust and magic in general. And I'l respect people when they don't take me for an idiot. As some have the tendency to use science to practice voodoo and Scientism and expect other just to take their word for it. Well we got better microscopes today!

[@NephilimFree]

Claim: DNA is a product of material, chemical processes with no evidence of being intlligently designed. Response: The DNA molecule is a physical medium encoded with information which prescribes organisms. Since information is an non-material product of intelligence which cannot be produced by material processes, all organisms are a product of Intelligent Design. Premises: 1. DNA is a physical medium encoded with genetic information which prescribes the structural design and biochemistry of organisms. 2. Abiogenesis Theory is the concept that material, chemical processes caused the arrival of the first genetic information in the form of RNA and ultimately DNA. 3. Evolution Theory is the concept that material, chemical processes developed the genetic information which caused the arival of all organisms after the origin of the first cell. 4. Information is a non-material entity. It is not comprised of matter or a property of matter. 5. Material processes cannot produce that which is non-material. 6. The origin of information is a mind/intelligence. Conclusion: Since all organisms are prescribed by information, and since Abiogenesis and Evolution theories posit that material, chemical processes have caused the arival of all organisms, Abiogenesis and Evolution theories are therefore false. Properties of Genetic Information: 1. It is prescriptive - it prescribes the structural design and biochemistry of organisms a. It prescribes function of proteins by prescribing their structural design, which determines their functions and relationships with other proteins and cell structures b. It prescribes organismal features, such as organs, their arrangement in a body plan, and their relationship to each other c. It prescribes the regulation of information expression in time (4th dimention of genetic information) to maintain and operate an organism 2. It possesses a code system which is the alphabet of it's language system 3. It possesses linguistics properties - phonetics, semantics, punctuation, syntax, and grammar a. Language is physically represented by symbols b. Symbolism is non-material - symbols represent objects, processess, or concepts which are external to themselves c. The application of meaning to a symbol and interpretation of meaning from a symbol is a mental process, not a material process. Minds apply meaning to matter, not the other way around. d. It is illogical to apply mental properties to matter Information is a non-material entity 1. Information is purposeful - it describes something meaningful such as data, function, concept, or process. 2. Information cannot be physically measured because it has no physical dimentions or mass - the concept of measuring one pound or one meter of information is nonsensical. 3. Information is not bound to whatever medium upon which it is encoded. Example: The information in a book can be spoken or copied onto any other medium without the information changing in any way. 4. If information were comprised of or a property of matter, it would not be possible to convey information without relocation of the material medium upon which it is encoded. Examples: a. Reading a book: If information and minds were both physical, it would be impossible to receive (read) the information in a book without relocating the materal of the book into the brain of the reader. b. Reading a printed message to another person: If information and minds were both physical, it would be impossible to convey (read aloud) the information in a book without relocating the materal of the book into the brain of the listener. c. Speaking to an audience: If information and minds were both physical, it would be impossible to share information to an audience without relocating the material of the provider's brain to the brains of the each member of the audience.

[@Dilly972]

"you don't understand how evolution works" they say all the time. NO the ID movement understand the arguments very well, the real problem is that materialistic evolution is not a causally adequate explanation based on observation alone. But they can never concede this point ID does a great job of answering a fool unto his folly. A very much needed restraint to the insanity that follows from throwing out the creator.

[@rep10101]

A huge flaw in evolution. They do have leaps of faith

[@thwonk121]

It's a great way to explain protein synthesis. Most of the proteins contain well over 150 amino acids, so the one they offered with 50 was even pretty simple by comparison. It's the ultimate chicken and egg question for the darwinists. You need DNA to form proteins and you need proteins to form DNA. But neither of them comes about without a living organism, yet you can't have a living organism without both proteins and DNA. I guess they need a few more "just so" stories to fill the gaps in the evidence. In fact, if you are planning on being a successful Evolutionary Biologist, you may want to think ahead and get an undergraduate degree in creative writing, because you're really just a story-teller at the end of the day. So, you may as well set yourself apart from the pack by being a really, really, good storyteller.

[@thwonk121]

ExtantFrodo2 Read "Signature in the Cell" for a bit of a better explanation. Chapter 14 deals with the RNA world in a great deal of depth. Let Meyer trump you if you like, or just read it to see what the other side really has to say, rather than what the critics say about them.

[@thwonk121]

ExtantFrodo2 Ya. I did say that. If you'd like a summary of the points, I can give them to you.

[@Mindhumble]

materialism is the most stupid theory ever come up with. any child can understand design, it is incredible that we have to go through all the hassle to formalise ID, to any unbiased mind it is obvious there is a designer if presented with even a part of this incredibly precise and harmonious universe.

[@majesticmalfeasance]

Of course, no analogy is perfect or exact, but I would just point out that the guy searching for the right combination on a lock is not doing it randomly. He is trying out different sequences and keeping track of the ones he's tried so as not to repeat any of them. That requires a mind or at least a specified program created by a mind.

[@kingwilliam763]

The theory of "Evolution" and its allied hypotheses of "Abiogenesis" are the most fiendishly elaborate lies ever perpetrated on mankind.

[@CoreyJason]

People who hate God or simply don’t want to know him will find any (futile) means to escape him.

[@Trypsonite]

You're projecting so hard you should go work in a movie theater🤣

[@TheGtk444]

You are so right about this -unfortunately, recognizing this depends on someone’s willingness to study these matters a little bit. Nobody is willing.

[@F15CEAGLE1]

People have authority issues. Many will deny until their earthly end.

[@MWPoss]

Simple answer to a simple question. Information comes from God. God is information. You can’t create anything without information, and the ultimate creator is God, hence the logical ultimate source of information is God.

[@karenfulk191]

How could anyone not see the utter impossibility of Darwinian evolution??

[@Dr_Diaz]

They choose not to

[@HazemShurrab]

"وَأَوْحَىٰ رَبُّكَ إِلَى النَّحْلِ أَنِ اتَّخِذِي مِنَ الْجِبَالِ بُيُوتًا وَمِنَ الشَّجَرِ وَمِمَّا يَعْرِشُونَ" "Your Lord revealed to the bee: 'Build your homes in the mountains, in the trees, and in what they are building."

[@mydh122]

17:30 It's good that Meyer points out that the "Scientific Method" is different from the "historical scientific method", which is more forensic in nature and is what Darwin actually used. It is also called "multiple competing hypotheses" or "inferring to the best explanation."

[@ozredneck22]

"There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of natural events which can cause specified information to originate by itself in matter. Therefore the origin of information must be non natural and non material. The concept of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy, always has been." Werner Gitt

[@AndyThomasLovesJesusChrist]

+ozredneck22 AMEN !!! Love Werner Gitt ... :-) In the Beginning there was INFORMATION ...

[@mkely9032]

+ozredneck22 What? You seem to have mixed up abiogenesis and evolution. There are plenty of science how non life can turn in to "life". I highlighted life as what is life? Viruses are sometimes classified as non life.

[@TubeNotMe]

+Mk Ely Who's talking about abiogenesis? The video begins with the Cambrian explosion. ozrednec22's also says nothing about the origin of life. Besides, you are wrong when you say "There are plenty of science how non life can turn in to "life"." Please cite one case where abiotic processes produced a living thing. If this has not been demonstrated, then there is no real science of how life non-life could become life in the first place. Speculations and vague stories about how it "might" have happened do not count as science, or only as scientific *attempts* to explain how life may have begun. Until it can actually be demonstrated to be possible, all we know for sure is that there's no way that we know it could happen, and there are lots of reasons for believing it could not.

[@WizzRacing]

+David Bump You should just say the Neo Darwinist believe in Magic Pixie Dust. As my first question is always how does life get created from none living matter. But it some how does it in the right order, right time, right conditions, right food source and avoids predation and it does it on huge scale. As you don't get one mutation.. You need two that can reproduce. Unless the first one wants to wait around a few million years for some one of the opposite sex to come along and just happen to be in the same location if and when it ever happens. Using that Magic Pixie Dust explanation like Time, Random, Chance and Unguided. All known to not cause anything to happen as they are not physical forces in nature.

[@ozredneck22]

David Bump says "..There is plenty of science around and stories about how things "might have" happened, but no demonstration that they could have happened..." Unfortunately for True Believer™ it is a lot worse than that. The only tools available for them are Earth, Wind, Fire and Water and the last 150 years of scientific research has revealed that these elements and processes work against the formation of life "naturally". So how can they be responsible for its origin?

[@jonathanbrewster7823]

I don’t like the bike lock analogy. It still inherently relies on intelligence and systematic methodology to cycle through the possible combinations. In other words, it is not truly random. A better analogy would be that the numbers are automatically reset and the thief attempting to break the code simultaneously loses his memory after every attempt. This would be truly random and make the probability even smaller for success.

[@endofdays7708]

In that case he could end up trying for a trillion years and not figure it out, even if he is one right number away.

[@euroasiainternational1758]

GREAT COMMENT

[@txp158]

I smell intelligent design.....

[@craigbirchfield417]

Every parent should show this video to their adolescent or young adult children.

[@kato_dsrdr]

Don't really know much about biology but here's a thing about information... The information for the correct combination for the 10 digit lock is actually encoded on the structure of the lock itself so it means that the code of information for the right combination already exists even if it's one in a billion..

[@anguspure]

These guys are doing a great job and this video is yet another presentation of their very important contribution. Stephen Meyer, at the brunt of the ID movement cuts a very admirable and influential figure. And to the nay sayers: Bahh Humbug

[@jliz6435]

Information = intelligence

[@danbarnes8905]

one of the best videos since the unlocking the mystery of life.......very compelling information.

[@timmbrockmann959]

I was wondering ten years ago already...Evolution is driving life, but what drives Evolution itself?

[@Dr_Diaz]

God

[@zaxineohp]

The creation of one protein is only one almost infinitesimally small part of the process of building an animal. How many different proteins are there in any given large animal? (Or small animal for that matter?) Then one must ask where does the construction blue print come from that specifies how all the parts are put together. This is still not enough. Assembly instructions must be provided so that all the parts are put together at the right time and in the right order. Of course all this is the result of a random process! ;>)

[@seamus9305]

Math disproves random mutation.

[@larscp]

If we are only chemistry and nothing else, why should pure chemistry be interested in surviving and passing on genes ?? There's something wrong.

[@rambiss89]

Finding a functional protein is one thing. But there is a higher order problem of: how is a reliable method for consistently producing the functional protein over and over again going to arise and where is that methodology stored and how is it activated?

[@darryl5372]

I am a high school drop out, so I can accept it if this question is irrelevant. My question is this; if using only a small number of possible combinations, wouldn't there need to be some existing form of intelligence in the search for the correct combination? What would keep the search from repeating the first combination as well consistently eliminating failed ones from the search and only applying new combinations?

[@ferdinandocoluccelli9574]

@Darryl my question is this instead: why reject the more obvious answer? intelligence is. you also use it. then? why don't accept it as explanation?

[@markusgorelli5278]

Learning about feedback loops in biological systems squashed and buried evolution-by-random-chance for me. As it means that two systems - one to switch things on, and one to switch things off have to co-evolve (or co-mutate) to prevent your cell machinery from running amok. (think insulin and diabetes) And if you know anything about probability you know that your odds of that happening by random chance go up exponentially with each co-variable. Further, the intelligence behind creation cannot be bound by the laws of physics and whatnot as we are currently bound by. So unless it is posited that there is somewhere in the universe that the laws of physics etc do not exist as we know it, so that *complex ordered systems can come into being spontaneously,* then nowhere "inside" the universe is suitable for the origin of life and the source of the intelligence must come from "outside" the universe. (And not from the informational organic beings living in the Andromeda system who are right now supposing whether intelligent beings from the milky way seeded their galaxy. lol)

[@williamrice3052]

So the design of life definitely could have come about from a long series of undirected accidents, it's just a lot more likely the product of a supremely intelligent agent. That's why it's been said it takes much more faith to be an atheist, than to simply believe in the creator God. Nice video.

[@surfDaddy]

The analogy by a journey of the amoeba across the universe in another video, to signify the effort required and the probability of a single protein being synthesized by random chance (over whatever time-frame is required) was good one. This is also excellently well presented and discusses the science of bio-informatics.

[@teagle1064]

I believe another relevant question is; Who or what is the agent searching for the correct combination?

[@mireklalas]

The video asks a key question to our outlook on the origins of life, but it keeps offering material equivalents of explaining the progress of living organisms - such as the genetic code. This argument must be clinched more explicitly (even though Meyer attempts that) with a clear premise that for a material structure (such as a living cell, or a larger organism), a non-material system is needed, i.e. a pre-designed code dictating the structure of the future organism, not only containing the matrix of the organism about to be built, but also equipped with self-awareness and a sense of an overriding purpose. In short, a conclusion is needed on how the DNA in our cells speaks of a greater necessity for a sentient designer. The DNA is made of matter. Our language, for example, is an almost completely abstract code for a material reality. Yet, it works as a foundation for our minds and consciousness.

[@virus2003]

Great content... but man oh man is the CONSTANT heavy-handed music ever annoying.

[@DerKirchenhocker]

Dr. Werner Gitt wrote an excellent book on the information question entitled, “In The Beginning Was Information”.

[@CoreyJason]

Word!

[@moses777exodus]

*_"It is only at the semantic level that we really have meaningful information; thus, we may establish the following theorem: Theorem 14: Any entity, to be accepted as information, must entail semantics; it must be meaningful. Semantics is an essential aspect of information because the meaning is the only invariant property. The statistical and syntactical properties can be altered appreciably when information is represented in another language (e.g., translated into Chinese), but the meaning does not change. Meanings always represent mental concepts; therefore, we have: Theorem 15: When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."_* Dr. Werner Gitt (Former Head of the Department of Information Technology at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Germany)

[@robertmicelli2946]

Dr Meyer is my hero

[@smni942]

Good one! Background music might have been eliminated or, if someone feels that necessary, much lower to make the voice intelligible.

[@greggy553]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. ~ St John

[@mickaeelmateen7417]

Thanks Dr Meyers for your excellent work may Allah the most merciful protect you ameen

[@mikewesselhoff439]

Loved this video. It was really well made. Highly recommendable!

[@arbaknumbskull]

Giving your computer a new function, you must give it information. So we right back to square one. Who made the codes? Who made the programs? Cant wait to hear

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

From a lay person's perspective, it seems logical that a new body plan, like one emerging from the Cambrian Explosion, would need to have all of the protein-making functions in place for the entire creature from the beginning, otherwise the chance of making another just like it would be nearly impossible. If I'm missing something, steer me in the right direction.

[@zionism48]

What would be the comparative difference between using "causes now in operation" and "desktop science"? Is one more valid than the other?

[@NephilimFree]

10 Laws of Nature Regarding Information, which prove evolution false and prove creation is true: 1. Anything material, such as physical/chemical processes, cannot create something non-material 2. Information is a non-material fundamental entity and not a property of matter 3. Information requires a material medium for storage and transmission 4. Information cannot arise from statistical processes 5. There can be no information without a code - no thought or idea can be shared without a code 6. All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient 7. The determination of meaning for and from a set of symbols is a mental process that requires intelligence 8. There can be no new information without an intelligent, purposeful sender 9. Any given chain of information can be traced back to an intelligent source 10. Information comprises the non-material foundation for all: a. technological systems b. works of art c. biological systems Therefore: 1. Since the DNA code of all life is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude that there must be a sender 2. Since the density and complexity of the DNA encoded information is billions of times greater than man's present technology, we conclude that the sender must be supremely intelligent 3. Since the sender must have a. encoded (stored) the information into the DNA molecules, b. constructed the molecular biomachines required for the encoding, decoding, and synthesizing process and, c. designed all the features for the original life forms, We conclude the sender must be purposeful and supremely powerful. 4. Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, we conclude that the sender must have a non-material component 5. Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, and since information also originates from man, we conclude man's nature must have a non-material component (spirit) 6. Since information is a non-material entity, we conclude that the assumption "the universe is comprised solely of mass and energy" is false. 7. Since: 1) biological information originates only from an intelligent sender and, 2) all theories of chemical and biological evolution require that information must originate solely from mass and energy alone (without a sender), we conclude that all theories or concepts of biological evolution are false. Anyone who disagrees with these laws and conclusions must falsify them by demonstrating the initial origin of information from purely material sources. Therefore, the laws of nature about information have: 1. refuted the assumption of scientific materialism and the theories of chemical and biological evolution 2. all philosophies or theories based on the assumption of scientific materialism including chemical and biological evolution are falsified by the laws of nature about information.

[@myothersoul1953]

1. Everything material (energy or matter) can from something material. 1a. The none material is immaterial because it can't have an effect on the material. 2. "Information" is the value of material things properties and attributes. 3. 1 above plus 2 above = information and material are two ways of talking about the same thing. 4. Statistics is a system for describing characteristics of data and of drawing inference from those characteristics. 5. Codes are representations, they are used to transmit meaning. Lots of things exist that have never been codified. 6. For codes to be useful they need to be systematized. A well designed code can be very useful a poorly designed code can be useless or even misleading. Because codes carry meaning the only things known to create meaning are humans there were no codes before humans. 7. "Intelligence" is a poorly defined term, rather like "consciousness" or "humor". 8. Things have have properties and attributes even if no one or nothing every sends a signal about them. 9. Information can not be either created or destroyed. 10. 1 above plus 9 above implies that universe always was but that doesn't mean we can describe how it was before cosmic inflation. Just because you can string together some premises in to what seems to be a logical argument doesn't mean the premises true or the argument is valid. If you really want to believe something there is no reason to invent an argument to support it. Just be honest and say that is what you believe because you want to believe it. If you want to know the truth you should know: 1. You can't know the truth with absolute certainty. 2. Whatever you think might be the truth is probably wrong in some way. 3. The truth may not be what you want it to be. 4. Start with simple premises and be willing to abandon them when you find out they are inconsistent with each other or inconsistent with what you see. 5. Carefully construct arguments from those premises and test your conclusions by trying to disprove them. 5a. Looking for evidence or testimony to support your beliefs might make you feel good but will not get you closer to the truth. To get closer to the truth you have to change your beliefs.

[@gunny_zky]

So what are they telling us? The significance of us having life is so extremely unlikely, or that something divine / god create all of this beauty?

[@bradsmith9189]

Terrific work! Keep up the drive for the real truth. Don’t even blink:}

[@secondlastnameleft]

Praise be to the uncreated Logos!

[@dwheel39]

Excellent presentation

[@TheNosarajr]

Nature is mysterious. God is a poetic creation to explain reality.

[@nofacee94]

And final point, where does the 'extra information' come from for AI such as Google DeepMind, e.g. AlphaGO? If it can become better than a human (which it did), where is the 'extra information' from?

[@phranquiecoull9928]

A logical consideration of the question.

[@lmoody8003]

This is awesome! Thank you for this great content, a clear, concise and wonderful film. But the volume of the music bed is too loud and while it is beautiful, it is distracting.

[@Goohuman]

I believe this work will be the foundation of great science in the future. I doubt England will put Dr Meyer on their 10 pound note though. Maybe we can replace Jackson on the 20 dollar bill.

[@johnkoay8097]

Evidence is so clear.

[@steveking8710]

Excellent video as a teaser for people actually interested in seeking scientific truth (without letting preconceived religious beliefs taint them). It is only natural that we would be able to say more on this topic now than someone from the mid 1800's who didn't even yet understand the complexity of one living cell. I believe that MOST people would be very surprised to see that there is even another scientific side to the Darwinian view since that is all they have been spoon fed all of their lives.

[@atmanbrahman1872]

very good documentary.

[@freedom4life312]

In other words....it's impossible for anything complex to appear out of thin air.

[@AndyThomasLovesJesusChrist]

this is NOT a "Young Earth" Creationistic view, only ... it is just a critique of what most Evolutionists take for granted, including, using their own "Time Scheme" of millions and billions of years. It relates really, only to the INFORMATION found in DNA/RNA. So, even if those millions and billions of years are true or NOT, regardless, where did the INFORMATION found in DNA/RNA come from? Prescriptive, programming-language based information ... a language or a "computer code" ...

[@MicahZak]

+Andy Thomas Well said, Andy. It's finally bringing in the tough questions into the scope of science that mathematicians and other scientists have known for a couple decades or so. If we can get rid of knee jerk reactions, we might discover a whole new level of science and evolution previous generations were closed to.

[@AndyThomasLovesJesusChrist]

Micah Zak I am an IT Specialist, MS Server Admin, and Software Developer (by trade) and Pastor by passion and calling, etc. Because of my Software Dev. background, DNA/RNA make sense to me. It is micro-chemical-biological software on hardware ... it is Prescriptive Programming Language just like what I do every day. It requires Intelligence behind the CODE. No other way to look at what we see before our eyes (Romans 1:18-22). We are without excuse to the exquisite linguistic design in all of life. It is CODE, it is Language, it is Music, it is Song all rolled into Real LIFE. :-)

[@tedlawry5484]

Information comes from the environment, that's why it is called "adaptation to the environment." Maybe if you actually tried to learn something, instead of posing rhetorical questions which assume all the world's scientists are stupid, you might actually, you know, learn something.

[@xlntnrg]

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” - Bill Gates

[@brian.josephson]

+Ted Lawry 'Information comes from the environment' isn't actually an explanation, and neither is 'adaptation'. It means no more than saying that when someone solves an exam question the information determining the answer written down comes from the question paper: it is true in a sense, but not helpful as an explanation.

[@wolfking4879]

And people still deny even with proof like this.

[@brian.josephson]

The key point, which may well have escaped some people, is that what is being discussed here is not the evolution of species but the evolution of proteins. An argument is presented that claims to show that random mutations can't do it. Part of the argument I believe is that the only proteins of interest in biology is ones that can fold, and partial folding doesn't do anything, so the usual argument that evolution depends on things gradually getting better can't be used. Is there a problem with this argument, since if not it appears to support ID?

[@xlxlffdd6630]

Think about how much further along we could be in our science today, if we didn't spend so much time and money on trying to prove obviously fictitious theories like evolution. We shouldn't have had to discover information in DNA to realize something so simple. Look at any structured organic life form on this planet, rather it be a cat, a dog, a tree, a flower, or a human being. It should be common logical sense that information was required to form the structure of it's existence. And as this video points out information *always* requires intelligence.

[@LifeandLifeMoreAbundantly]

So grateful for these videos, thank you; would love to know what schools are teaching this information to students.

[@impactproformance]

The lock thing is a ok example I hear a lot... But honestly the numbers moving randomly doesn't mean chance goes through each option one at a time systematically till it hits the right one, that 10^10 chance also has a huge chance of landing on all the "easy" options first, meaning it could potentially NEVER hit the right combo EVEN IF there was a chance, but could endlessly just keep landing on a measly yet easier 100 options. For example I could go my whole life flipping quarters, but it's doubtful I'd get it to land on the side or even the heavy side's edge (adding complexity compounds difficult exponentially). Everyone forgets to mention it's not systematic and options can happen more then once. Plus chance has no causal power. Time, chance, energy/matter, none of that MAKES anything happen. Obviously there is intelligent design, question is who's mind? ...though I think Daniel 9 was information given by a being that transcends space-time and makes the scripture very... shiny as an option. :D

[@wolfensteinplayer3972]

Please my brothers, add the Arabic subtitles 🙏🙏🙏

[@BradHolkesvig]

Psalm 33 4: For the word of the LORD is upright; and all his work is done in faithfulness. 5: He loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of the steadfast love of the LORD. 6: By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth. 7: He gathered the waters of the sea as in a bottle; he put the deeps in storehouses. 8: Let all the earth fear the LORD, let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him! 9: For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood forth. 10: The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nought; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. 11: The counsel of the LORD stands for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. 12: Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage! 13: The LORD looks down from heaven, he sees all the sons of men; 14: from where he sits enthroned he looks forth on all the inhabitants of the earth, 15: he who fashions the hearts of them all, and observes all their deeds. 16: A king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength. 17: The war horse is a vain hope for victory, and by its great might it cannot save.

[@mikebetts2046]

From the standpoint of probability, we can say that if you drop a pile of bricks on the ground enough times, eventually they will land in the shape of a dog house. But nobody really believes it would ever happen.

[@GreenAsICanBe]

Who made the genetic "alphabet" or gave meaning to the genetic "words"?

[@teesmarkhan2938]

respct for Dr Doglus Axe, Stephen meyer, Mike behe and David Berlinski👍

[@SongsOfTheWay]

Why is a video backing up creation still talking about billons of years 🤔 I’m confused

[@vladim73]

Remember what Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionist has once frankly admitted: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."

[@saifurrahman6495]

Unthinkable to him, not to me and to more than a billion people.

[@zacharysylvester8349]

To be fair, science does not offer absolute proofs like mathematics, it is strictly provisional with the best current understanding. I say that being on the side of design myself, but you have to be fair when quoting people.

[@MuslimOrthodox]

May Allah give you hidayah , Stephen C.Meyer and all people in this comment , Amen

[@bluejysm2007]

Great video and well explained about information and protein sequence. Thanks, the Discovery institute for this Science series.

[@naserdeenmehana144]

Great videow many thanks for the good work.

[@najibwarsame8851]

Qur'an 41:53 We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness? Qur'an 41:54 Unquestionably, they are in doubt about the meeting with their Lord. Unquestionably He is, of all things, encompassing.

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

ID is a question(s). What best explains the history of complex inter working systems in nature? Often expressed as "inference to the best explanation," and what our every day experiences with designs and what they tell us.

[@alistair3]

Hello, Frodo2. I think the argument is how you first understood it. There are so many possible combinations of amino acids that will not produce anything usable. The analogy is that there are so many ways of combining letters, but only very, very few (comparatively speaking) are recognizable, usable words. Likewise, the vast majority of amino acid combinations are just defunct and ineffective.

[@alistair3]

ExtantFrodo2 Hello again, Frodo2 Apologies for the delay; my teaching term finishes this week so i'm rather preoccupied. However, you asked for some examples of work on the topic. Here it is. Have a look at this article on the very problem we're discussing. It is published in a peer reviewed journal and demonstrates that there is insufficient time (by a long way) for any chance event to produce an activation site at random. www.tbiomed.com/content/12/1/18 Let me know what you think of its content and we can discuss what you make of the scientific evidence. God bless, Alistair

[@alistair3]

Hello again, Frodo2. I do wish you'd engage in a more respectful discussion, because to be honest you are coming over somewhat naive with the way you seem to think everything is obvious or anyone who disagrees with you is just being stupid. It is not, and they are not. For example, it is perfectly fair to consider the time something takes to make it into a population because, after all, that is precisely what you are looking for. It is no good something evolving a marvelous feature if it never manages to be acquired into the population but instead is just gobbled up by some hungry predator instead. Again, it is not that these people are trying to make things 'seem impossible'. What they are trying to do, and what you find difficult to accept, is that when you do the hard work analysing the maths associated with the idea of random mutations leading to genetic variations of a kind that can be sufficiently distinct to be 'selected' by natural selection then you bump up against these hard statistical boundaries. It is no good saying you don't like these boundaries; what you would have to do is to show where the assumptions that go into such mathematical models are wrong. If you can't do that, then it is no good complaining about the results just because they don't match your preferences. As a final attempt, have a look at this article, also contributed by Sanford, at the problem of polyvalent (or what they call polyfunctional) DNA. When this was first identified, it was considered unbelievable because it put the problem of mutation into a multi-dimensional perspective. Again, here is the mathematics associated with the problem that we have been discussing, namely how completely unlikely it is that any random mutation would produce a beneficial mutation because any change would have multiple changes to the production of proteins, and the vast majority of such changes are harmful to the organism. www.robertmarks.org/REPRINTS/BINP/9789814508728_0006.pdf Here is a quotation from p.149. 'We are forced to conclude that the poly-functionality of DNA profoundly affects the expected rate of beneficial mutations. The growing evidence for polyfunctional DNA therefore suggests that unambiguously beneficial mutations should be vanishingly rare.' Try to put some thought into your response, because I don't think this article is either trivial or naive. Hopefully, by the way, you can put to bed the rather naive reaction to my statement that the intelligent design argument is founded on peer-reviewed, falsifiable, generalizable science. Again, this did not show you in a good light; it seemed to show that you'd bought into the populist position that 'we're obviously right and they're obviously wrong'. That kind of approach doesn't get anyone anywhere. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours, Alistair

[@alistair3]

Thanks for your reply, Frodo2, but I don't see you engaging with the material itself. You seem to be making the same claim that somehow it is easy to get beneficial mutations to genetic codes. It doesn't look like any amount of evidence will change your mind because you've already decided that any evidence that disagrees with your view is wrong in advance. Fine, but I call that position blind faith, and it has little to do with the kinds of rational discussion that I was hoping to achieve. You mentioned LEGO bricks in your earlier reply, and I've directed the discussion to two articles showing that insertions and deletions of amino acids is not equivalent to swapping lego bricks: it is more analogous to swapping letters in a game of scrabble; because of the nature of the way proteins are encoded on the genetic code, you'd have to find a lucky letter that could change at the intersection of two words (or more in a multi-dimensional reading of the DNA code) and still have words that can be found in the dictionary. what you find is that as the size of the words gets above two or three letters, the probability of such possible changes becomes very small very fast until it becomes zero. Again, the problem you've got is that the Maths (which is really where good science ends up) is against you. You correctly remind me that evolution is not target-led, but that pushes you back into the land of statistics or probabilities, and that is where Intelligent Design theorists are experts. Sanford, Dembski, Marks, Seaman; these are all serious scientists. I said i wouldn't appeal to authority, so forgive me this reference, but to think that you can dismiss their arguments by saying it is crap is really not a credit to you, and certainly does not respect either your or my intelligence. I feel we're going round in circles, so I'll bid you farewell. I don't suppose you'd appreciate a 'God bless', but I do wish you well. Yours, Alistair

[@moses777exodus]

"Language: ALL DIGITAL communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful." (Wikipedia: Digital Data) Inherent in DNA is language. Language is scientifically proven to be the product of only Mind/ Consciousness / Intelligence.

[@lisagreif6808]

What are the chances we can get official English subtitles to all Discovery Institute Videos? My students would benefit greatly! Thanks. Hire me? haha.

[@kamelha6445]

God gave every thing its creation and then guided it.

[@Sabyls]

Excellent work! Another point worth noting is the WAY proteins are encoded in genes. Each amino acid that is needed in the protein molecule is represented in the gene code as 3 nucleotide bases. In simple terms, the bases are represented by the letters, A, C, G & T. So each amino acid is specified by a 3-letter code. ALL of these features of genetics are anything but random.

[@ambient4435]

Is there a transcript available for this video? Would love to have one to share some good points in text form.

[@Ben_the_Ignorant]

Please make the same documentary without the loud music.

[@dougtibbetts857]

Imagine the information required for a monarch butterfly to undergo metamorphosis and then supplies it with the ability to travel thousands of milesto a place its never seen..... some living longer than others based on the distance travelled

[@BarryHavenga]

The video shows that the probability of the life occurring without some sort of intelligence behind it is vanishingly small. One could call the intelligence what you like but yes I call him God.

[@sunnysuzanna]

Please do this without the music, it's distractive.

[@mashrafhusseinjisan8480]

😊

[@zainabfashionstar]

Y

[@nunyabisnass1141]

Information is a conceptual derivative term for 'bits of sense.' Information as a thing doesn't actually exist. For instance, "green" is information, but not coherent information until placed in a set of other bits where it has an actual meaning, a meaning we interpret. But without us green still exists as a wavelength of light, but in a languistic contexts holds no information by itself. The video nor any of its speakers explain what information actually is or why one thing is information and another thing is not. They just state that orderly structures have it, and list off a few examples of other forms of information.

[@Calem-ky9hu]

This has been researched: The probability of 10 amino acids creating the perfect set for a single protein to exist is ( 1 in 10^164). In 6.4 billion years the number of chains that dont fold still would exceed to (10^58) meaning NOT POSSIBle without a inteligent designer

[@erixoz8535]

Explain the unused hip bone of sea mammals.