The 'DNA is information' argument

Debunking the argument that because DNA contains information, it must have been magically created... oh, I mean "intelligently designed".

Music: "Killing Time" by Kevin MacLeod
CC Attribution, used with permission.

Clips from:
Used for purposes of commentary and criticism, which is permitted under article 107 of the US copyright law, and §22 of the Swedish copyright law (upphovsrätten).

[Dragonsnack]

"The Universe is finely tuned. Constants make that clear."

How many other universes have you analyzed to come to this conclusion?

[Martymer]

I very clearly pointed out the equivocation. From what I understand, here's your argument:
1. Evolution can't explain it. (Actually it can, but let's go with it)
2. Therefore, Goddidit.
Even if I grant you 1 (and I don't), 2 doesn't follow.

[Martymer]

I've noticed the same thing myself. It's always "Yes, information can be produced, and here's how...", which, to the creationist probably sounds like "here's how to draw a triangle with eight corners". It doesn't matter how good the explanation is, because, by definition, it can't be done! Of course, the problem here is that they don't stick to a single definition, which skeptics don't call them on.

[c-bromo-dragonfly]

If human minds are so intelligent they require a creator as an explanation for their existence, how much more intelligent must their creators mind be? So intelligent that it too begs an explanation for it's existence to a much more profound degree. Considering the lame apologist excuse is that "God is eternal" *means that it's more than possible for an intelligent mind to exist independent of a creator; it simply isn't necessary.* In fact, the atheist's acceptance that his intelligence was the result of millions of years of evolutionary trial and error is a far better, well substantiated explanation than "my intelligence always existed, it's eternal." Therefore, either God doesn't exist, or his existence is a logical fallacy lol.

[cham]

I found it interesting that the five bytes of gibberish you used in the Jesus example actually suggested meaning to me. BTK is the nickname of a notorious serial killer in the US, and MD is a medical degree. So BTKMD immediately brought to my mind the image of a medical serial killer. Crazy how the mind works.

Love your videos btw, especially the spirit science series. Gotta love those space Jews.

[TheLithp]

Why are the top comments on this video in particular swarmed by Creationist strawmen? Whatever, might as well try to counter some of the bulshit:

"He claims that theory is inferior to science!" No he doesn't, he keeps saying "theory" like that to highlight that the Creationist is confusing 2 different fields, despite claiming to be an authority on the topic of information. If this was true, you'd think he'd know the name of his field, that's just--wait for it--common sense. Saying that theories are unscientific is YOUR technique, e.g. "evolution is JUST A THEORY, " so thank you for admitting you know this is bullshit.

"Sdpgn isn't information, it's gibberish!" This is why he made the point of the equivocation fallacy. Language is A definition of information, but this isn't a physical reality, it's an arbitrary classification. We could name something "Sdpgn" & then it would no longer be gibberish. But either way, it doesn't change the physical object. There's still data, there's still something that you can read, & the computer can read & translate into a graphical display--to the computer, it's equally informative. Also, if you're going to claim computer data isn't information, then the same should hold true for DNA. It doesn't have any meaning to US, it's just a template that the cell can translate into proteins. It is to the cell what data is to a computer.

"When the pattern is beyond randomness, it must be deliberate." Okay, well to start with, what is "random"? According to you, EVERYTHING is "designed." NOTHING should be "random." So again, you're just showing how your own reasoning debunks itself. You're building this case on the logic that natural phenomena (like DNA) are similar to artificial ones (like the alphabet), so therefore they must be designed...but if we can dig up a section of stone & determine whether the markings on it are a language or the product of erosion, clearly that's not true, clearly nature ISN'T like any code that we know of. So even though this statement is imperfect--not all natural phenomena are random--I do agree with the basic idea, human-designed codes & natural patterns are DISSIMILAR...which, again, debunks Creationism.

"You kept asking what information is/said SO-CALLED molecular code!" The first was rhetorical, since he eventually does give a definition for "information, " & by the second he didn't mean that molecular codes don't exist--which should be obvious by the fact that he said they were part of information theory.

"You're condescending!" Um, tough shit? You not liking his tone doesn't make him wrong, & personally I don't think he owes Creationists any sympathy. Spreading misinformation about science that they falsely claim expertise in is bad enough, then you remember that they also accuse those they don't agree with of being lying & morally defective. So, y'know, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

"Here's a bunch of other random bullshit about atheists being indoctrinated, science being a religion, The Big Bang being wrong, etc.!" Huh, it's almost like you know this argument doesn't have a leg to stand on, so you're just shotgunning insults in an effort to dump so much shit in here that people are unlikely to have time to debunk it all.

I think that's enough for now.

[pollyokeeffe]

Some plants have longer DNA strands than humans. If it was by design, then what the heck was the designer doing ????

[chickenman]

As a computer scientist, I salute you sir. I can also confirm that you have accurately portrayed Information Theory correctly. Of course information theory becomes a lot more complex when you start applying it to computer science, but that is unnecessary for this particular argument.

I would like to add that with the way I understand how DNA works, it is possible to add a lot more information to a sequence of DNA simply by inserting a single "letter" (correct me if I'm wrong, but this can happen). This figure is substantially greater than one would originally think. One might think the magnitude of added information is 1, but I assure you it is much greater than 1. This adds more complexity to the argument which would probably just go over the creationists head.

[Athenas_Realm_System]

You made an error "DNA is a sequence of amino acids"
That should be "DNA is a sequence of 4 Base molecules (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine)  which can symbolize one of 22 Amino Acids in Protein synthesis"

[blackfeathercrafts]

@kurt godel what do digital codes have to do with biology?

[leowulf]

I would love to see a video where Marty talks in Swedish the whole time and subtitles it. Just curious how it would sound since he speaks english so well.

[JawsFan]

I admire how eloquently you picked apart those creationist arguments. Definitely subscribing to your channel!

[Martymer]

"In my opinion, creationists aren't fans of people pointing out reality."
That's not an opinion. That's an empirical fact.

[chrisedwards]

Funny thing - your example at 5:50 isn't quite as clear on modern operating systems. Your process is perfectly valid and right, but OS's can store small file contents within the directory (the listing of all files on the computer), in order to save a bit of space. It can do this because directory entries have fixed sizes (which makes them easier to search), and so usually some of that space is unused. If the file contents are short enough, it will include those in the directory, rather than store it on some other part of the hard drive. So, when you go to Properties, the file can say "Size: 5 bytes. Size on disk: 0 bytes". The information is still there, it's just on a different part of the disk than is usually used.

Or, god remembers it so your computer doesn't need to. It's one of those two options.

[GiacomodellaSvezia]

I just noticed that one of the videos mentioned here was made by 'theTRUTHgroup'...
That is actually an incredibly pretentious and certainly badly chosen name. Claiming the truth is something I would never dare to do.

[Martymer]

I understand the point, and it's valid here, but only because I have an expectation. The computer doesn't. My expectation would be analogous to using data compression. The problem is that the experiment shown is meant to demonstrate an "objective" way to measure information (without any compression), and show that just because a word has meaning, it doesn't contain more information, which is the claim made by those who use the DNA argument.

[raj-crnl]

Saying "DNA is information" is kind of like saying "stainless steel and aluminum are two different types of information". No, they are just molecular arrangements that are understood.

[DarthAlphaTheGreat]

why did you use John Pendleten's example (forgot how to spell) XD He belongs to Logiked :P

[KaxMisha]

Great video, Martymer81! I noticed that your Notepad example was done on a Swedish computer. Är du svensk? :)

[Martymer]

First, define information. We need to know that we're talking about the same thing.