we've shown that dna is actually the
software of life it's totally
interchangeable between
the digital world and the biological
world
the dna code itself is so digital is so
almost exactly like uh
a computer tape
dna code itself
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 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 author programmed without a program
without a program materialists think so
through neo-darwinism the modern version
of darwinian evolution
stephen meyer author of the new york
times bestseller darwin's doubt explains
according to neo-darwinism new genetic
information arises as a 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
the
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
versions and 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
copying errors and our dna code can
produce new organisms could random
mutations in dna really produce this
this
this what about this this
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 as
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 abyss long
before you ever generate anything
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 scientist performed 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 the molecular
biologist douglas axe in seattle
[Music]
in our lab work we 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 one in 10 to the 74th power rare 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
axe 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 uniformly repeated experience as
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 that's 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 a 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 will
you respond
[Music]
we are not materialists
we see the human soul
we experience love
we live with purpose
we fight for justice
we we will be
[Music]
you