The Complexity of Human DNA Destroys Evolution

Science continues to reveal more complexity at the smallest levels of life. As a result the evolutionary account of life's origins is rapidly trending toward mythology. May God receive the glory for His incredible creation!

Related articles:

Related resources:

Chapters
0:00 Intro
1:09 DNA compared with software
2:02 Darwin's theory destroyed
5:43 DNA needs to be translated
8:38 Miller-Urey experiment: evidence against abiogenesis
10:17 The impossibility of ape to human evolution
11:00 Haldane's Dilemma
13:24 'Junk DNA' to the rescue?
17:28 DNA: way more complex than software
18:05 1st dimension of the human genome
18:18 2nd dimension of the human genome
20:03 3rd dimension of the human genome
22:27 4th dimension of the human genome
24:16 Results of 10-year "Genotype Expression Project"

[CMIVideo]

Wow! This episode struck a nerve with the evolutionists!
Notice how their responses resort to name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and a lack of engagement with the science.

[kevinsayes]

Guys, I’m not going to come into your community and call names, etc, but you all should really explore claims like this for yourselves. Not listen to commentators reading a prepared script. It’s not that these types of videos lie, it’s that the grossly misrepresent the science and conclusions reached as a result of said science. What’s really going on with DNA, genetics, evolution, etc., is very cool; wondrous even. I don’t share your claims about the origin of the universe, but I will argue that evolution is a far, far BETTER claim for God than everything being created thousands of years ago. Evolution in zero way disproves God. But in the modern era, we all have access to this data, and all people deserve to not be mislead.

[michaelhawk]

We know thing can and do evolve. We've never observed, demonstrated, or theorized how anything can be created.

[JungleJargon]

"Complexity" is what confuses people. It's not just complex, it is directed, ordered and programmed.

[christophermonteith]

You know, if you want you debunk evolution, you may want you actually be talking about evolution. regardless of the take on it, evolution requires life to already exist, abiogenesis necessarily comes before life and therefore before evolution. If you want to try and debunk or disprove evolution, heres an idea of what it is: changes of life over multiple generations due to various factors/ stimuli including, but not limited to reproduction ( or there lack of), environmental pressures, and mutatuons ( which are basically incorrect copying of genes/ dna/ etc, sometimes for the better in a given circumstance, and sometimes for the worse, and mostly neither). Basically, if you want to give a take on a subject, make sure it is that subject, as well as whats actually said about it, and preferably have up to date confirmed information and scources, though thats not vital if its just opinion

[skidmo]

Two words: Endogenous Retroviruses. Let me see you "scientists" explain those thru your magical sky daddy.

[ryandodrill]

As a computer programmer I always say the idea that DNA is just blind chemistry is like saying a modern computer is just blind electromagnetism.

[lme]

Your lack of understand how evolution works doesn’t disprove evolution, nor demonstrate your vague god concept.

Debunking evolution would never demonstrate any gods, let alone your favorite one.

[darrylelam]

So two completely clueless guys talking about a subject that they know nothing about. DNA is actually one of the strongest pieces of evidence in support of evolution and the only argument these fools have against it is that DNA is complex. Yet the completely fail to tell anyone, is that DNA is that complex because of BILLIONS of years of small changes. All of those small changes over billions of years is going to lead to very complex life forms. Even the simplest cell today is highly complex because its the product of billions of years of evolution.

DNA is such strong evidence for evolution because we can use it to connect different animals together, much like following foot prints in the sand. We can trace and see where the different species split off.

[animationlivegerman]

Omg guns must have been brought to us, by lisa the rainbow giraffe, I mean no person could come up with an AR-15 from having no guns at all. And the same goes for cars, nevermind the fact, that before fully automatic guns, there were X-action guns, that then just were further developed.

Just because the protein is complex doesn't mean it was the first one to do that job.

[dragonspartan]

And then you reveal your ignorance. There would be very little oxygen in the atmosphere, then the first plants evolved, increasing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, leading to the first mass extinction since oxygen would have been toxic to much of the life back then. Anyway, this wouldn't have mattered much since life is hypothesised to have emerged in deep oceans, around thermal vents.

[Zebhammer]

Prefer these longer talks. The shorter bite sized clips are ok but like snacks, not truly satisfying . Keep up the good work.

[ratgirl]

Did anyone else click thinking this was going to be satire? Because these guys have no clue.

[TickedOffPriest]

A blueprint within a blueprint within a blueprint.

[abidd]

Summary of this entire channel: "Anything that is to complex for me to understand must have been created by a god. And not just any god, the god I was taught about in the country where I was born."

[captainkelley]

Why is this information being presented by an actor and an electrician instead of a biologist and an engineer? Because a biologist would tell you that DNA corroborates evolution by allowing us to track the changes in allele frequencies, and an engineer would tell you that complexity is a feature of poor design. If you're going to intentionally mislead people about science, the last thing you want is an actual scientist.

[blargblarg]

Another thing you are lying about is that evolution states how life started. It does not. It discusses how life changes, but not how it started. You are conflating abiogenesis with evolution.

[fallout]

I don't know if I should assume you two are ignorant of the science, or willfully dishonest. Neither is a good look. You can say things like "impossible" or "major problem" but that doesn't make it true. "It's not fact" then why don't you perform some of the tests that you say are invalid? You can easily replicate their methodology and prove the results aren't valid.

I don't want to be rude or presumptuous, but some of this video comes across as intellectually dishonest.
"Junk DNA" is not as cut and dry as the presenters assert. There is healthy discourse over what should count as junk DNA, and how much there is. Presenting only the extreme upper estimates of junk DNA with the broadest definition makes me question the amount of research that goes into this video.

The foundational building blocks of RNA (Essentially half of DNA) can be found under natural conditions before life. Even if some iterations of those tests were flawed, science doesn't rely on one foundational text to form a dogma, that's religion. The molecules can be shown to form inside various soils, through various experiments. I should mention that the primordial soup is more of a pop culture thing than a science thing, to my knowledge.

I could go on, but I implore you all to accept that your beliefs are pure religion. Science can answer most questions, like how did something evolve, or where something originated. Im not saying it's wrong to be religious, but it is wrong to misrepresent science

[rsx]

There was literally zero evidence for the existence of God. I feel very bad for these people

[Korandon]

Not a single argument is less than 50 years old. Are you assuming there hasn't been any research into the topic in the last 50 years? Maybe look into research done in the last couple decades to maybe find the answer to these points you're bringing up. But then that would be honest wouldn't it? We can't have that.