DNA Is Code: Who Coded It? (Science Uprising 03)

DNA Is Code: Who Coded It? (Science Uprising 03)


we’ve shown that DNA is actually the software of life it’s totally interchangeable between the digital world and the biological role the DNA code itself is so digital is so almost exactly like a computer tape scientists have come to the amazing conclusion that our bodies contain digital code in fact Bill Gates you know the founder of Microsoft tweeted DNA is more advanced than any software ever created think about it a program or code is written by someone very smart the more complex the code oh the more intelligent the author has to be so here’s the question if our DNA code is more complex than any man-made software where did it come from is it possible it was authored without an all programmed without a program materialist think so through neo-darwinism the modern version of domain Ian’s evolution Stephen Meyer author of the New York Times bestseller Darwin’s doubt explains according to neo-darwinism new genetic information arises as the result of random mutations in the arrangement of the nucleotide bases along the spine of the DNA molecule if those random changes are beneficial they’re passed on and preserved and if many such changes are preserved and passed on they would accumulate over time and eventually result in a very significant change in morphology the form of the organism that’s like saying if this game had glitches every time it was copied online and gamers shared their favorite mutated version that trashed the rest it would eventually turn into this come on really if we know the computer glitches won’t produce a new video game how much sense does it make to believe that glitches and copiers and our DNA code can produce new organisms could random mutations in DNA really produce this this this this or this everything we know about software shows that random changes in a section of functional code or functional information is going to degrade that information long before you ever get to something fundamentally new and that’s the problem with the mutation selection mechanism is an explanation for new genetic information information in DNA is also essentially typographic or digital and there are far more ways to go wrong in arranging those characters and there are ways to go right and so as you begin to randomly change them you inevitably fall into a non functional with this long before you ever generate a fundamentally new so just how unlikely is it for random genetic changes to produce something new even something as modest as a protein structure with a new function one scientists perform experiments that enabled him to actually calculate the odds and they aren’t good in fact they’re next to impossible we caught up with a molecular biologist Douglas axe in Seattle in our lab work we’ve asked how rare or how common functional proteins are within the space of possibilities doing experiments and calculations we found that they’re exceedingly rare like 1 in 10 to the 74th power read to get a feel for those odds imagine that somebody hid one atom somewhere within the Milky Way galaxy and you blindfolded by chance are supposed to pick one atom and hope that it’s the right one those odds would be better than the odds for the protein acts calculated the probability for all the chance mutations in all of the life-forms on earth for billions of years and in all that time he found they couldn’t chance on even one new functional protein structure not one zero and keep in mind it takes thousands of distinct proteins to build any kind of complex life including humans and many of these proteins are unique to each individual life-form so we go from improbable to basically impossible the bottom line is that the mutation selection mechanism simply lacks the creative power to generate the new information necessary to build new organisms in the history of life if the material processes of mutation and natural selection aren’t capable of producing the biological information needed for life then where did it come from our uniformity repeated experiences Darwin himself pointed out is the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past so when we see information in a digital form in software or we see a paragraph in a book and we trace that information back to its source we always come to a mind not a material process as part of what we know from our observation of the world around us that information always arises from an intelligent source so we can apply that knowledge to the question of historical biology and when we see that information is the foundation of life we can infer that the best explanation for the origin of that information is in fact also a mind conscious agent not an undirected material process when presented with evidence that conflicts with neo-darwinism most scientists cling to a belief in the blind process of evolution denying what science has discovered that at the foundation of life there exists a code so complex and advanced that it defies chance they make no room for the possibility that we were created by an intelligence far more sophisticated than the most genius of programmers instead they choose to limit their investigation to a strictly materialist worldview when faced with this evidence how would you respond here now materialists we see the human soul we experience love we live with her purpose we fight for justice [Music] [Music]