The evidence against Darwin Evolution. A simple straightforward presentation that gives us hope in a world that offers only the possibility of a Cosmic accident that cannot be proven:
I watched it, so will give you my thoughts on it. I get the idea that this is one of those times where neither of us are going to convince the other, so this is more about swaying the audience. Also, I suspect that for you, anything that provides potential for a creator rather than us simply being the result of natural processes is important; just remember that regardless of how we arrive to "homo sapiens" you can always insert a creator if you wish despite the science. However, if we are discussing science, let's discuss science.
1. First of all, the narrator makes the error of suggesting that evolution makes our existence meaningless. That isn't a valid argument. The mere proclamation that something is meaningless assigns meaning to it. Plus, is it really not meaningful to be a part of a complex natural process? I find it extremely meaningful to know that I am a product of the Universe being patterned in this particular way to create this thing I experience.
2. The first point the narrator actually makes is something about evolution rewarding the "worthy" and punishing the "unworthy." Aside from being a very Biblical way of interpreting this, it isn't entirely accurate. Species adapt over time through the ability to reproduce and pass on offspring. Sometimes, unfit adaptations occur that, despite not being the best fit for the environment, still allows reproduction. For brevity, here's a link to some pretty dumb adaptations:
10 Worst Adaptations in the Animal Kingdom. (Note how this also suggests evolution since it shows imperfect adaptations rather than perfect creations. Like, why would God give us wisdom teeth?!)
3. These are the "dirty secrets." While they are interesting, they are either missing context, outrightly misleading, or interesting but do not dispel the evidence.
a) I admit I had to actually research this one a bit and the science is largely over my head. Douglas Axe's data on protein folding is interesting and it was an facinating rabbit hole! Largely, the science here is still being worked out. From what I read, his isn't the only data to show that protein folding has a wildly low success rate for functionality. That was nearly 20 years ago, though, and I suspect the science has changed, but maybe not. I don't have the scientific understanding of the subject and was unable to find anything but commentary by scientists about it.
Regardless, this doesn't disprove evolution. It suggests that protein adaptability is difficult, but the evidence that it has occurred is pretty clear. It could be based on the single type of protein Axe was using (beta-lactamase), or the process he used. Or it could be that there are factors he couldn't consider in his calculations. As much as scientists attempt to take in all factors, things outside of a lab are inherently messy and infinitely complex. I suspect (and please, anyone with greater knowledge on this correct me!) that it is a matter of simple proteins forming early and often with more complex ones unable to form at the same rate. Here is a link to Axe's research:
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds - PubMed
b) DNA is a coding system, yes, but the building blocks for it have been shown to naturally be produced extraterrestrially (in outer space). In other words, the building blocks of DNA form naturally and very likely the coding process that leads to life also naturally occurs due to the structure of these materials. Note: You can, if you wish, insert a creator in this process, but science doesn't require this. It is a personal preference. Regardless, DNA very readily provides the mechanism for evolution to occur and even the difficulty of functional protein folding cannot dispute this.
c) The 3rd dirty secret is an old one and very much not a secret. This is the old "missing link" argument. That there are gaps in the transitional record has two good reasons: Life decays and slow transitions between species require minute changes over long periods that may not be observable. There are sudden adaptations in species that can be observed, but also small ones that cannot. Also, a big problem with the "missing link" when it comes to humans is those links being filled in over time. We are continually finding new hominids and adding links in the chain.
This Small-Brained Human Species May Have Buried Its Dead, Controlled Fire and Made Art
d) The last one is also not a secret and also an old argument: the watchmaker argument. The complexity and purpose of organs are being compared to machines: designed things for a purpose. This argument has been around since at least the 1800s and even Darwin specifically addressed it by saying that over time, fixed laws in nature are perfectly capable of creating complexity. Now, we know how DNA is able to create complexity, shaped by environmental forces.
