Apologetics Session 36 - Origins and Evolution - Part 3

Up the first time around. I did a recap last time on that. Last time we went through evolution, primarily focused on the fossil record, primarily focused on kind of the science of evolutionists and the, I guess I'll call it pseudoscience, in some cases because of the extrapolation that's done, the tremendous amount of extrapolation.

We went through specifically things like the human and chimp DNA comparisons that were done that claim to be 98%, but in fact when you actually look at how the studies were done, it was excluding a tremendous amount of biological material, DNA material, when it did those comparisons.

And so we went through all of that, Lucy, Artie, all of that stuff. So now that we've kind of gone through and demonstrated really the lack of transitional form evidence in the fossil record, we now need to get to the origin of first life.

So as I said last time, when we look at evolution, and we sort of use that term in the sort of popular sense, which is really to say Darwinian evolution by natural selection through random mutation. But that's too big of a mouthful to say, so we'll just paraphrase and say evolution.

But when we talked about evolution, we all know that evolution actually happens, right? Or what a lot of people term as microevolution does happen. There's adaptation, there are somewhat adaptations within kinds.

So in other words, you can have lots of different breeds of dogs and you can crossbreed dogs and you'll get an adapted version of that. Or you could have certain animals that will adapt to their surrounding environment.

So an example that I heard in another video was if you put long haired dogs and short haired dogs in a very cold environment, and the long haired dogs through natural selection would probably win out and over time you would end up with long haired dogs, primarily because the short haired dogs would die off.

And short haired dogs may breed with long haired dogs, you may end up with some sort of adapted form. But these types of micro changes, and one of the sort of famous examples is what they call Darwin's finches, which are these finches, which are birds that live on the Galapagos Islands and some of them have longer beaks, some of them have shorter beaks.

Their beaks have essentially evolved over time, adapted to the food sources that they're currently consuming. But those are adaptations within a species. Those are not what Darwin's theory is meant to posit, which is that a species can create, a new species can come out of an earlier, more simplistic species.

So this evolution of kinds is something that has never been observed, and has never been scientifically proven. So it is still a theory, and no transitional forms as we discussed last time have been found to demonstrate in the fossil record this concept of Darwin's tree where you've got simpler forms evolving into more complex and different forms through these mutations.

And we talked about the fact that evolution requires survival of the organism to propagate the adaptations and mutations downstream in later generations. So mutations that will result in the death of an organism would essentially make it so that that mutation didn't propagate.

And only mutations that allow for the survival of the organism would then survive on into future generations. And this is very important, especially when we want to talk about the origin of first life.

Because Darwin's theory of evolution does not actually even attempt to determine where the first life came from. It presupposes life existed already, and that these biological organisms were essentially mutating over time to create other forms or other organisms.

We talked a bit about the Cambrian Explosion. We talked about the fact that a whole series of organisms show up in the fossil record with very distinct body plans, and there's no evidence of any prior forms in the lower strata where those fossils were found.

So the origin of first life, this is what some people term as chemical evolution. And Darwin's theory doesn't really try to go after this. It was Darwin kind of assumed that later scientists would figure some of this stuff out.

So chemical evolution, which is essentially living organisms evolving from inorganic chemicals or non-living chemicals. So this is life springing from non-life. So evolution relies on this trial and error mutation process.

So a mutation happens, and that mutation either results in survival or death of the organism, and the surviving mutations propagate downstream. Again, if the organism dies, there's no way for it to propagate because there's no super brain that is over evolution that is keeping track of which things worked and which things didn't.

And Drew actually talked about some experiments, and there's actually a video later on that we're going to watch which actually talks about some of those experiments in detail around essentially biologists trying to orchestrate this life coming from inorganic chemicals.

This session is going to be a bit video heavy, mainly because a number of the concepts that we're going to talk about are very difficult to conceptualize just through words, and it's much easier to watch these videos that are sort of showing renderings of things like double helix and unwinding DNA and cell division and so forth.

So we're going to go through a bunch of that stuff. So in Darwin's day, they understood that the cell was a building block of living organisms, but what they didn't understand is sort of the internals of the actual cell.

They knew that biological life was made up of cells, but they kind of thought in Darwin's day, which you know, late 1800s, that a cell was just sort of like this gelatinous blob, right? They didn't really understand the sort of biological machines that are inside of a cell and the function.

They certainly didn't understand DNA and the human genome or genomics in general. So they didn't really have kind of a concept of the sort of mini machines that were there. They also didn't understand that those mini machines had specific functions and very complex functions.

There's the mitochondrion, which is the sort of energy plant of the cell. There's the ribosome, which makes proteins and links amino acids together. There's the nucleus, which is sort of, it houses the gene, right?

It houses the DNA. And there's an immense amount of information that's inside DNA. I think we talked about, when we were talking about the human chimp, there's 3 billion base pairs in the human, it's 3 point something, but 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA.

So that's just, I mean, when you think about the size of the information that's in there, and each of those pieces of information actually dictate function within the cell itself. So just like humans can't survive without organs, the cell can't survive without these organelles.

That's what they call them, organelles, which are like the organs of the cell itself. And so evolution teaches that each organism evolves from a less complex to more complex organism. So you would imagine that the cell itself would also evolve from less complex cells to more complex cells.

And it's easy to think about when you already have life kind of going, but when you're thinking about just chemicals in some primordial soup, it's kind of difficult to understand how these inorganic chemicals would sort of arrange themselves into a living organism, because the cell itself is actually incredibly complicated and complex.

So they have been able to recreate, as Drew shared, in one of his sermons, they were able to recreate the formation of some simple proteins, but it was in a closed system, and they had, they were using sort of, they had sort of prearranged certain circumstances within that closed system that they don't believe, modern scientists don't believe that the Earth wasn't that way, theoretically, back when this supposedly happened.

And so it, they really are a long ways off from recreating this, because I just don't think it's possible to recreate it. So the other thing is, whenever you're dealing with some of these experiments, you're dealing with an intelligence, a mind, which is the biologists themselves, that are always monkeying with things to try and orchestrate them so they're prearranging things in a certain order, which kind of refutes the whole sort of random chance argument in and of itself, right, because they're sort of prearranging things to try and, you know, get the result that they want.

So, and again, Darwinian evolution, we're going to talk a little bit about theistic evolution next time, but Darwinian evolution is a purely material process, meaning that there's no external, you know, there's no external actor that is trying to orchestrate this, it is entirely material, natural processes.

And so for life to begin in an undirected material process, you would have to imagine that there would be a tremendous amount of luck, right, for, and it's sort of the numbers are incomprehensible. Because if it didn't work, again, if the random chemicals didn't arrange themselves in such a way to create the first simplistic single-celled organism, there's nothing outside of this undirected material process that's keeping track of what it attempted and how it failed, right, because it's, again, an undirected material process.

So every time the dice is rolled, you're rolling from scratch, right, there's no way to essentially keep track of your failures the way scientists normally do in experiments. So, and even if you could find, you know, even if they could prove that proteins themselves were formed, you still don't, you're still a long ways off from the complexity of a single cell, right, all of the organelles.

Because the cell, if you take any one of those organelles out of the cell, the cell dies. It doesn't function. And so it is a concept that is known as irreducible complexity, which means that if you have something that is irreducibly complex, it means if you take anything away from it, then the thing stops functioning.

And so one example that's used a lot is a mousetrap, right. So, you know, a mousetrap has got, you know, the wooden, you know, plank or whatever that it's on, you've got the spring, you've got the bar that comes over, you've got the trigger, what do they call it, the little, where you put the bait.

You take any one of those things away and the mousetrap doesn't work. Now, the mousetrap not working is, you know, just a mousetrap not working but a cell not working means the cell itself dies. And so it is an irreducibly complex thing.

So, put simply, irreducible complexity states that certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one part was removed. And so, you know, in the mousetrap example, if you take a block of wood away, none of the metal parts have anything to snap to.

And so every piece of the machine is required. So the machine itself is irreducibly complex. And since evolution has to prove that these things came together by chance, this is a real problem for them, right?

Because you've got a cell that won't function even to the point of, you know, you get down into the, even to the pieces of the cell, so things like DNA, right? These things have to come together in the right order to actually produce function.

So, irreducible complexity is a, there's a video, it's a short video, it's about two and a half minutes, that goes through the concept of irreducible complexity in an evolutionary sense. I think this is an answer to the genesis.

It's been said that we humans share 50 of our DNA with the nap.

That's the old video. That is the old video. Can we see the one with the panda? Get rid of the other, I was shown this before class, so I'm going to get rid of that. And then let me go back to here, go to this slide.

Oh, yeah.

The bacterial flagellum was one of the central examples of irreducible complexity being highlighted in his book.

If you take away the propeller, if you take away the motor, if you take away the clamps that hold it onto the cell's membrane, take away any of a number of different parts, it's not that the flagellum is going to spin half as fast as it used to.

It's broken. It doesn't work at all. It's like taking the propeller off of an outboard motor on your boat and wondering how far now you can go in the water. You can't go anywhere. So that's a problem for Darwin's theory.

Because Darwin's theory says that things evolve by working a little bit, maybe not very well, but a little bit, and then a mutation, a change comes along that helps it work a little bit better, and that helps the organism survive and have more offspring.

And so then another change comes along, and another, and another, and it gradually builds up to the final structure. Well, that might work for some things, but it doesn't work for systems that are irreducibly complex, things like the bacterial flagellum.

Because, well, if you wanted to build an outboard motor for a boat, what would you start with? Would you start with, say, just an iron rod that, you know, in the future would attach a motor to the propeller?

Well, what's that going to do? It's not going to do anything. Would you start with just a propeller? Well, that's not going to do anything. It's not attached to anything. Would you start with just a motor?

Well, that's not going to propel you anywhere. So with irreducibly complex systems like the flagellum, Darwin's idea is dead in the water, like a boat with an outboard motor that doesn't work.

Natural selection selects or favors variations that confer a functional advantage on a system. Many of the simpler versions that you could imagine of the bacterial flagellar motor perform no function at all.

So if you imagine trying to build a flagellar motor, adding parts one by one, until you finally get to the complete system, you're going to encounter configurations of parts that confer no function, in which the motor simply will not work, at which point the evolutionary process will terminate.

It will cease to continue because the system conferring no function will not be preserved and passed on to the next generation.

Right, so this was just a quick example of irreducible complexity. So essentially, in this example, you've got this motor, which is for bacteria, that has a bunch of interacting parts that actually propel the bacteria, allow it to move around.

So without that, then the bacteria can't move around, the bacteria dies. So again, this irreducibly complex system needs every piece for it to work, just like the outboard motor example. So this is an example of a number of things having to come together all at the same time for things to work in Darwin's theory.

And so you can't go from a simpler form to a more complex form for things like this that are irreducibly complex. I understand that in Darwin's day it was probably easier to think about things, and it's kind of an easy thing to think, oh, well, it's going to work a little bit, and then it's going to work a little bit more, and then it's eventually going to perfect itself.

But you've got things here that if they don't work perfectly well, then the organism itself dies.

They didn't have an electron telescope back then.

No, they didn't. And things like this that science has discovered, and I think I said this last time, but as science marches on, it actually makes the theory of evolution harder and harder to accept to the point that neo-Darwinists, and you're going to hear a little bit more about that later, neo-Darwinists are actually kind of worried that they need to come up with a new theory of evolution.

But the funny thing is, as I said last time as well, you're almost considered a moron for questioning it. There's almost a religious adherence to this theory of evolution to the point that you can't question it.

Yeah, who's behind that? Yeah.

So that's one example of irreducible complexity. Now we start talking about some of the inner workings of the cell. And this is stuff that Darwin couldn't have known because I think it was 1953 when the structure of the DNA molecule was really kind of elucidated.

And so now we know that there's a tremendous amount of code. They call it genetic code, but it's digital code that is embedded in every one of our cells. It's a tremendous amount of information, 3 .4 billion letters long of information that's in a strand of DNA.

So it's a massive amount of code. And it's not just... One way that I've heard Dr. Meyer, and you're going to see another video by Dr. Meyer later, but one of the ways I heard Dr. Meyer say it is, it's not just that you have the letters, you have to have the sentences.

That genetic code is organized in such a way that it produces a specific function. If you reorganize the letters, if you jumble them up, then the cell itself doesn't function because it doesn't have the code.

So you can think of it kind of as computer code, right? Being a software engineer, it's something I understand fairly well that if you were to take someone's actual computer code and you were to jumble up a function, right, because we actually have things structured in functions, if you were to jumble up the inner workings of that function, it wouldn't produce the same result that you want it to produce, right?

And so it's the same thing in our bodies, right? It's the same thing in DNA. There's a tremendous amount of code that is actually written into our cells that actually calls our cells to function in the way that those cells are meant to.

So there's also the matter of cell division. This is how single-celled organisms become more complex. You've got cell division. Well, in cell division, the DNA, right, if a cell wants to divide into two identical cells, then the DNA in the origin cell has to actually be replicated so that it can create a second cell with a copy of that DNA.

And so there's actually, and again, this is video heavy day, there's machines inside our cells that deal with the copying, transcribing, translating, and error correction in the actual cell themselves.

And these things are too small to actually see, but there's basically a rendering of kind of how this works. They know some of the pieces of the cell that actually are doing these functions and how they work.

But the DNA itself is actually the code that runs our bodies, that runs our cells. So there's a quick video on DNA itself, just so that you guys can conceptualize what DNA is. Because these things are really complicated to think about.

Nobody in this room, I don't think anybody in this room, is a biologist. So some of these things are hard to sort of conceptualize. I thought that, is somebody in this room a biologist? Okay, great, you're a biologist.

Drew's a biologist?

I'm amazed.

But this is a video that kind of demonstrates what DNA is and how it's structured so that you can kind of see what we're talking about. And just keep in mind, all of this is supposed to have happened entirely by chance.

All of this stuff is supposed to have come out by chance. This is what mainstream science teaches, that this happened by chance. Play it for me or not. There's a chance.

Rock, roll.

...is DNA. Every living thing has DNA, from plants to animals to bacteria, even to viruses which were once considered non-living. But most importantly, we humans have it. DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, and although every living thing has DNA, its varied compositions differentiate you from others.

The interesting fact is that humans' DNA is 99 the same. Therefore, it is only 1 of DNA that makes you unique. Does this mean twins don't have exactly the same DNA? No, they don't, unless they're monozygotic or identical twins.

So now the questions arise. Why every living thing has DNA? What is so important in it? And what does it do? DNA has a recipe for synthesising proteins. DNA synthesises RNA, or ribonucleic acid, by a process called transcription, which is further translated into proteins by a process termed as translation.

The explanation of DNA conversion into RNA, and finally RNA into proteins, is called central dogma. DNA contains hereditary information that is passed on to you from your parents. If you and your father have the same colour of eyes, or your hair are as silky as your mother, it is because of DNA that you inherited from your parents.

Even many diseases are passed on from generation to generation because of DNA. Where does DNA reside in your body? Your body is made up of billions and trillions of cells, and almost all cells have DNA in their nucleus.

Can you tell us which cell may not contain DNA? Now let's talk about the structure of DNA. Think of DNA structure as a ladder whose rungs are made up of different bases and sides as sugar phosphate. Each composition of this nitrogenous base, pentose sugar and phosphate group, is called nucleotide.

The nitrogenous bases are of four different types, adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine. Adenine will always bind with thymine, and cytosine with guanine. This type of bonding is hydrogen bonding. Phosphate and sugar are linked together to make backbone, and complementary bases are attached on it.

Due to the bond angle of the sugar phosphate molecules, the linkages will eventually form a double helix structure. There's a lot more to know about DNA, but that's all for now.

Your headers! So the reason I bring that up is, or the reason why I wanted to show that video, is because, as you can see, there are four letters, right? So you can essentially break down DNA into a bit of code, right?

Just like we have 26 letters in the alphabet, there's four letters in, and they're representative of those nucleotide bases. So ATGC, right? Now, it talked about how they bind together, but then you also have the arrangement of them within the double helix DNA structure, and they're arranged in a particular order so that it produces a specified function for that cell, right?

I'm not a biologist,.

So I'm sure it's way more detailed than that, but just think about arranging letters in a sentence, the way you would in a book. If you arrange letters in a random order, you get gibberish, but if you arrange letters in a particular order to convey meaning, then you have a word or a sentence.

Similarly, in DNA, these bases are arranged in a particular order to produce a function, to actually convey meaning or produce a function to that cell. And so during cell division, this DNA has to get replicated so that you can create another cell, and it talked about the RNA and the process of transcribing, translating, and we're also going to talk a little bit about how that goes, and there's another cooler video, I think, that actually shows this cell division process and the kind of biological machines that are in our bodies that are actually, like it just kind of talked about the process there, but when you see this next video, it's amazing, it's amazing, the machines that are in our body that are actually performing this cell division function.

So here's the next video, which is describing that process. Keep in mind, all this happened by chance.

No.

These are tiny molecular machines, and they are doing this inside your body right now. To understand why, we have to zoom out. Every day in an adult human body, 50 to 70 billion of your cells die. Either they're stressed or damaged or just old.

But this is normal. In fact, it's called programmed cell death. But to make up for all these lost cells, right now, billions of your cells are dividing, essentially creating new cells. And that process of cell division, also called mitosis, well, it requires an army of tiny molecular machines.

So let's take a closer look. DNA is a good place to start, the double helix molecule we always talk about. This is a scientifically accurate depiction of DNA created by Drew Barry at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research.

If you unwind the two strands, you can see that each has a sugar phosphate backbone connected to the sequence of nucleic acid base pairs, known by the letters A, T, G, and C. Now, the strands run in opposite directions, which is important when you go to copy DNA.

Copying DNA is one of the first steps in cell division. Here, the two strands of DNA are being unwound and separated by the tiny blue molecular machine called helicase. Helicase literally spins as fast as a jet engine.

The strand of DNA on the right has its complementary strand assembled continuously, but the other strand is more complicated because it runs in the opposite direction, so it must be looped out with its complementary strand assembled in reverse, section by section.

At the end of this process, you have two identical DNA molecules, each one a few centimeters long, but just a couple nanometers wide. So to prevent the DNA from becoming a tangled mess, it is wrapped around proteins called histones, forming a nucleosome.

These nucleosomes are bundled together into a fiber known as chromatin, which is further looped and coiled to form a chromosome, one of the largest molecular structures in your body. You can actually see chromosomes under a microscope in dividing cells.

Only then do they take on their characteristic shape. Otherwise, the DNA is more strewn inside the nucleus. The process of dividing a cell takes around an hour in mammals, so this footage is from a time-lapse.

You can see how the chromosomes line up on the equator of the cell. Now when everything is right, they are pulled apart into the two new daughter cells, each one containing an identical copy of DNA. Now simple as this looks, the process is incredibly complicated and requires even more fascinating molecular machines to accomplish it.

So let's look at a single chromosome. One chromosome consists of two sausage-shaped chromatids containing the identical copies of DNA made earlier. Each chromatid is attached to microtubule fibers which guide and help align them in the correct position.

The microtubules are connected to the chromatid at the kinetochore, here colored red. The kinetochore consists of hundreds of different proteins working together to achieve multiple objectives. In fact, it's one of the most sophisticated molecular mechanisms inside your body.

The kinetochore is central to the successful separation of the chromatids. It creates a dynamic connection between the chromosome and the microtubules. For a reason no one has yet been able to figure out, the microtubules are constantly being built at one end and deconstructed at the other.

While the chromosome is still getting ready, the kinetochore sends out a chemical stop signal to the rest of the cell, shown here by the red molecules, basically saying this chromosome is not yet ready to divide.

The kinetochore also mechanically senses tension. When the tension is just right and the position and attachment are correct, all the proteins get ready, shown here by turning green. At this point, the stop signal broadcasting system is not switched off.

Instead, it is literally carried away from the kinetochore down the microtubules by a dynein motor. That's the walking guy. This is really what it looks like. It has long legs so it can avoid obstacles and step over the kinesins, molecular motors that walk in the opposite direction.

Personally, I'm astounded by these tiny molecular machines, how they're able to routinely and faithfully execute their functions billions of times over inside your body at this exact instant. I'm also amazed by the scientists who were able to work out how this happens in such detail that we could create realistic depictions of them, like you saw in the animations in this video.

But perhaps the most amazing thing is just how much is left to be discovered, like figuring out how exactly the chromatids are pulled to opposite ends of the cell. There is still so much that we don't quite know.

What I find exciting is that in science fiction, for decades we've been writing about tiny nanobots that will be injected into our bloodstreams that can heal us. What this suggests, the existence of these tiny molecular machines inside us, it suggests that there isn't a physical limit that would prevent that.

So I think it's pretty likely that in the future we will be able to develop our own tiny molecular machines that will be able to repair our bodies better than they can repair themselves.

No idea if that second part is going to happen, but it's neat to think about because I am a sci-fi nerd. But nevertheless, when you look at a video like that, what's the first thing that comes to mind?

If they had an electron microscope back in Darwin's time, the theory would never have been devised.

When you look at something like that, does that give you the idea of random chance, or does that look more like an engineer built a machine?

Intelligent design.

An engineer built a machine that had a specific function, and these machines are constantly running in your body day after day, year after year.

Why isn't it an engineer on the order of magnitudes more than the human brain?

Because they admit that they still don't understand how everything actually works. They're able to render the things that they observe today, but they're things that they observe that they still don't have an explanation for.

So it just shows you that the level of engineering required is at a scale, to your point, that is far beyond what we can do today, given all of our technology, all of our know-how, all of our wisdom, all of our science.

So that to me, when you see things like that, it just puts the theory of evolution in a totally different camp in my mind. Where I feel more like people lecturing us, people who believe in God and believe that God created the world and created us and everything, people lecturing us, telling us that we're unscientific.

Most people that believe it, by the way, don't go into anywhere near the detail that even we are in this class, and we're not going into near the detail that you could possibly go into, but people who want to lecture us clearly don't understand what's going on inside the body.

Because when you look at that kind of stuff, what is more plausible, that that was engineered or that that happened on its own through random chance? And when you talk about irreducible complexity, going back to that concept again, any one of those things doesn't work.

The machine that carries it across the strand, the transcribing, the unwinding of the DNA and assembling it back in reverse order, any one of those things is not working. That cell doesn't divide. It just doesn't divide, and the organism dies.

Eventually cells do die, all cells eventually die, and if the cells can't divide, that organism dies. And so how would anything like that evolve over time? It's a difficult thing. I'm sure there are very smart evolutionary biologists that would sit here and laugh at me about this, but just look at what they've discovered, and if they're honest, they're doing the same thing Darwin is doing.

We'll eventually figure it out. We'll eventually figure it out.

You're talking about one small piece of a cell.

Yes.

This is just one little piece.

This is just cell division.

Yes.

This is not even the cell carrying out its function. This is just cell division. Yeah, you're 100 right. And when we talked about the immense amount of code in the DNA itself, and all of the machines that are in there that are basically replicating that code, it's just staggering.

It's staggering to me the amount of complexity that's in just a single cell, a single cell. It's amazing to me. So we're going to kind of cap off, I think, here. Let me just think. So, yeah, going back to the video that I just showed, you know, there's science.

There's the scientific method, which is the method of experimentation, right? Experimenting and observing the results of your experiments, right, learning from those. And then there's sort of the idea behind science that not everything is repeatable, right?

And so there's sort of going to the best explanation, right? So when you look at something like that, right, you think of an engineer, you think of an intelligence, a mind behind the creation of that.

Just like if you were to look at a watch. I brought this up last time. You look at a watch. You don't assume that that watch, you know, came about by chance. Or you look at a house or a building. You don't assume that those things sort of just happened on their own.

You assume there's an intelligence behind the creation of that thing. We think of a car or, you know, any mechanical device. Assume that there's an engineer, there's an intelligence, a mind behind the creation of that thing.

And that's because that's what we observe in the material universe, right, is that whenever you see something that is complex like that, you assume that there's a mind behind it. Dr. Meyer, Stephen Meyer, there's a lot of his videos linked in this.

He's an intelligent design proponent. He is a Christian and a theist. And he wrote three good books. One is called Darwin's Tao. One is called Signature in the Cell, which talks a lot about that. And then there's The Rise of the God Hypothesis, which in the first two books, he basically argues for intelligent design but leaves out who the designer is.

On purpose, right? He's doing that to basically say, you know, just based off scientific methods, this, you know, the idea of an intelligent designer makes the most sense. And there's some folks that think space aliens are the designer, right, that they came through and, you know, seeded the planet or something.

But then when you add on what we talked about in the very first session, right, which is around sort of the low entropy conditions at the beginning of the universe, all of the, you know, constants that are in, you know, physics, and how finely tuned our universe is, you then have to go to a transcendent designer, right?

You have to go to a mind, a designer that is outside of the physical universe because, you know, a space alien lives inside this universe, couldn't have created this universe. So you have to move to a transcendent designer, which if you look at like some of William Lane Craig's stuff, they talk about, you know, spaceless, timeless, you know, and unbelievably powerful.

So this is, you know, essentially a description of God, right, being the actual intelligence behind the creation of all of this. So the amount of information that's encoded in DNA, the nanomachines, right, it just defies the possibility that this could strictly have been created from an undirected material process.

And so Stephen Myers is a good person who's been pushing on this. There's one last video that we're going to go, it's an hour-long video, but we're only going to go through two sections of the video.

It's what they call the Sunday special with Ben Shapiro, if you guys are Ben Shapiro fans, where he talks about two things. One is the idea of, you know, intelligent design and the problems with Darwinian evolution.

And the other is one of the examples of them trying to refute that through something that they call the RNA world, which he's going to talk more about it and more intelligently about it than I could. And we'll cap off with that, and then, you know, any questions that you guys have we can talk through.

This will last, I don't know, maybe ten minutes. I may just have to go out to the... Let me see if I can kill the thing here and just play it here.

This is Darwin's...

So we'll just fire it up on natural...

If you're getting an origin question or... All right, so let's talk about the origin of life problem. So the question being, how did organic life arise from non-organic material? There are some experiments that were done in the early 20th century in which under certain conditions it looked as though maybe organic material could be created from non-organic material, but there really, as you point out, has not been a great explanation of how non-organic material could create an information system like DNA.