Thank God for Dr. Denton. As my science teacher husband just said, nobody asks these kinds of questions. That was pretty much Michael Behe's reaction too when he read Dr. Denton's first book, Evolution: Theory in Crisis. Same here, me and Dr. Behe and all Dr. Denton's readers I hope, all of us filled with wonder and joy at the beauty and order of the natural world.

I truly thank God for these wonderful productions. I can confidently share them with believers and non believers alike and both learn that there that is is for more to question than they previously thought. So professionally done. God's blessings over and over.

Great work Denton and Discovery institute! Thank you so much for providing another killer argument for design. As a composer this argument really speaks to me. Had I known this argument a little earlier I would definitely have used it in my recently published book Exit Evolution. I love the light that comes on in Dentons eyes when he at the end speaks about the designer. Although it is forbidden to name the designer when defending ID, I feel compelled to pronounce: Soli Deo gloria!

Very well done, but I think it would be even more impressive if the 'background music' were not so loud. The 'background music' somewhat impedes the narration and comments made by subject matter expert.

"...they are not needed to survive; they are just beautiful."

Such a beautiful video, perfect narration and imagery, and a fascinating argument about the limits of Darwinism in explaining all of life's features. I hope it provokes more skepticism for Darwinian fundamentalists.

Adaptation seems to assume a functional goal in mind as adaptation begins. But how did grasshopper legs know they needed to jump or bee legs know they needed to collect pollen?

Beautifully done. As I watched, it occurred to me that Darwinism has its own "god of the gaps" problem here...

This was epic. I love the baroque theme tied in with the question being examined. How beautiful it all is, and an evolutionist has no answer for it! (Well, they might spit words, but there's a difference between a reply and an answer. The beginning of knowledge is the fear of God.)

Mutation is not a formative process, but rather a mistake.

A Mathematical view on the impossibility of Evolution theory: The theory of evolution has unsolvable difficulties when we look at it with Mathematics. Here some simple probability calculations illustrating the impossibility of random mutations and natural selection generating evolution: The 4 nucleotides of life :C,G,A,T which compose the DNA of all living species, can assemble in any combination possible, with equal probability. Let’s calculate some odds, using codons, i.e. sets of 3 nucleotides, the 64 combinations (4^3) of these codons correspond to the 22 aminoacids of life, as many different codons code the same aminoacid. The number is even larger when starting from nucleotides, and let’s neglect levogyre and dextrogyre (i.e. left and right hand orientation) which also would make it even less probable: •Human genome has 3.3 billion nucleotides=1.1 billion codons giving aminoacids. i.e. =>22^1,100,000,000 = 10^1,480,000,000 ! Wow! This number is humongous, lot of zeroes …(about 4,000 km’s long of 0’s!) •The time available per the evolution theory is 5 billion years = 1.6 x 10^17 sec. ! One can easily see that you cannot obtain by random mutations something you have one chance in 10^1,480,000,000 if you have 10^17 seconds available! Natural selection has no time to operate and sort out so many bad sequences. •Even if one assumes all the atoms work in parallel to achieve this. Big Bang theorists claim the Universe is finite in space (Raelians understand it is infinite), so if we follow their reasoning, there are less than 10^81 atoms in the Universe according to them. So if all these atoms would work in parallel during all the time they claim possible, we get 10^81 atoms in 10^17 seconds would give 10^98 tries, and imagine 1 million tries per seconds 10^6 x 10^98 = 10^104… still quite far from 10^1,480,000,000 ! This clearly cannot work. So even the Big Bang theory is contradicting the theory of evolution. •Let’s go simpler, take a small bacteria, about 300,000 nucleotides = 100,000 aminoacids => 22^100,000 = 10^134,000 still way too far to happen in 10^17 seconds. •Even if we take the smallest human gene 252 nucleotides, or 84 aminoacids, we have 22^84 =10^113 vs 10^17 seconds, nope, even if do parallel processing, so even a small step cannot come close to make it. No single gene can happen by random mutations of nucleotides. Even if you assume infinite time is available (which is not what Big Bang or Evolution theory claim) , it would still not happen as there is no mechanism to organize the nucleotides randomly. Molecules like nucleotides do not know what is a gene, or an organ, an organism, an ecosystem, etc … so they cannot follow a predefined path to assemble in the right sequence. This needs a view from a higher level, it needs intelligence and knowledge to assemble it, and random is the the opposite of intelligence. So there is huge disparity which is impossible to resolve with random mutations and natural selection, any way we look at it. Not only abiogenesis (the creation of a first cell from inert matter) cannot happen by itself, but neither Darwinism, the problem is the same. Mathematics clearly show nucleotides cannot generate such complexity randomly. Darwin's idea which may look good for some people from far, falls apart at microscopic level, now that we have discovered the DNA and understand how genetics transmit. Even those not strong in mathematics, can easily realize that the brain of a human genius, a peacock, a colorful tropical fish or a dragonfly cannot come by chance. Its far too complex, too cleverly put together. They are sophisticated designs we cannot even make yet, but one day we will be able to do and create life and humans ourselves. In 2010, Dr. Craig Venter’s team already created the DNA of a bacteria, so we are on our way to creating life synthetically. But not by chance, but with intelligence, scientific knowledge, computers and special equipment. By Advanced mastery of DNA and Genetic Engineering, or Atheist Intelligent Design, like it was done for us ... Thank you Elohim for giving us the ability to understand! Andre Julien M. Eng.

I've often wondered why there is such a multitude of variations in design and colours in nature in everything. Evolution's answer of the plants such as flowers changing or evolving to make themselves more attractive to pollinators such as insects or birds didn't make sense. Many of the insects can't even see in color , so having the millions of different flower shapes , sizes and colors and combination of colors offer them no evolutionary benefit. If evolution's answer applies , why do flowers barely visible to the human eye get pollinated just the same as flowers 1000's of times larger in incredible colors.Or why do plants come in so many variations of size and amazing diverse foilages when there's absolutely no evolutionary advantage to them. No , these were designed for humans to enjoy the mass variations and beauty found throughout nature. Almost everyone enjoys a park that has been planted by someone in such a manner that the many colors , textures and shapes found in plants are incorporated into the landscape that it's comparable to art.Yes , the designs in nature exceeds evolution's limited explanations 10's of thousands of times over.

This is outstanding. Thanks for this video!

Even my dog knows that things don't create codes. ALL codes come from programmers and information comes ONLY from intelligence. THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS! “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.” James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist Shapiro is an advocate of non-Darwinian evolution and is a critic of the modern synthesis.

Beautiful video. I agree with every point too. Well done

I love your book, children of the light. Amazingly put together and eloquently broken down. God bless you sir.

Eye opening. Thanks for creating this

I always assumed that beauty was an advantage because it attracts mating partners. The leaf patterns may play a role in the way the plants interact with insects. Maybe each plant must be different in order to attract a specific pollinator.

Not all natural phenomenon are necessary, the star fish has evolved for purposes but that it has exact 5 fingers is random selection

Excellent documentary! There can never be enough emphasis put on the symbiosis seen in nature, and preached from our pulpits, or being presented in Christian apologetics. Symbiosis not only nullifies Darwinism, but is the diametric opposite. Darwinism requires "change" in habitat, which in turn spurs organisms and animals to change . On the other hand, symbiosis requires "stasis" ...well balanced habitats which are perfect environments for the organisms and animals that live in them. This stability relies on every plant and animal remaining the "same," and fulfilling their symbiotic niche throughout the cycles of their entire life.

Fibonacci is everywhere you look, and truly is one of the wonders of life. What beauty God created for us.

Love you all ,,,, Thank God Any one is present In World which thinks Rationally....

The theory of "Evolution" and its allied hypotheses of "Abiogenesis" are the most fiendishly elaborate lies ever perpetrated on mankind.

How obvious! Beauty in nature, for the sake of it! "Claiming to be wise, they have become fools" Thank you for this video!

I used to hate biology: it never struck me as meaningful, beyond technical issue with hopefully technological applications. Dr. Denton showed me the intrinsic beauty of biology--literally. Darwinism is not just an explanatory overgeneralization, it suffers an aesthetic defect. It borders on the edge of tautology, or uninteresting description. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake opened my eyes by encouraging me to think of life as *truly* living, and our cosmos as alive. I'm not sure if it's true, but I'm just excited to see views like Morphic Resonance being on the table. That wouldn't be possible without biology testifying to Pythagoras or Plato.

Great points I've stumbled upon in my own thinking, but how beautifully and orderly it has been articulated here, well done, I think it's the most obvious killer point against macro evolution, besides functionality, did it all have to be so beautiful as well, same beauty in non living things as well, landscapes and and the sky and space

Somewhere in the early writings of Gerard Manley Hopkins is a meditation on the natural aesthetic of the chestnut leaf ...

I enjoy these programs, this one is very interesting, but I wonder why is there this music in the background so distracting?

As a Screenwriter; perfect script and stunning production values!!!!

Thank you for such a beautiful video

Most of this documentary makes sense but one thing I think the authors got wrong was animal intelligence. Specifically, how it relates to communication. They make it clear that there are orders of magnetism between us and animals. Not necessarily so, in my opinion. When we talk to our pet dogs they understand a lot of what we say ('You want to go out' or 'fetch your leash', 'go get the ball', ' you want to be fed' etc.) Interestingly, when our dog comes to us and barks we have no idea what the barking means. Only in a Lassie TV episode does an owner divine the meaning of the bark or series of barks. Years ago, PBS did a documentary on Gorillas and Chimpanzees and how they could learn American sign language (The First Signs of Washoe). In one part of the documentary the scientist handlers gave Washoe a piece of watermelon. This was the first time that the chimp had seen and tasted this fruit. She went crazy and stampeded to the scientist and signed to him something like 'Want more Drink-fruit'. This was significant because Drink-Fruit was extemporized by Washoe. She had created her own nomenclature and it was obviously symbolic! In my opinion we have done a poor job of investigating animal intelligence. We don't really understand it possibly because we try to categorize it in our own terms which may be a mistake. I suppose lack of funding for this research also plays into our lack of knowledge.

Thanks . For such a video .

good video

Wonderful. Love it.

An excellent perspective that is uncommonly mentioned.

Would beauty be a funcfional aspect of life?

Very nice

Love the Ave Maria music!

I think you should write a book on this topic

The essential argument here is fundamentally flawed if a "beautiful", "non-adaptive" feature is a necessary consequence of the "adaptive" ontogenic representation of the genetic expression.

A few basic body plans could have been seeded here from life on another planet and then adapted to fill many niches on earth. That could have happened at the start of the Cambrian explosion.

All this , and not once mentioned extraterrestrials seeding life on the planet.

This is a very interesting video which raises good questions about the limits of natural selection. I hope this spurs the imaginations of those who watch it and leads to more questions and skepticism rather than less. "A wizard did it" is not a valid explanation. If "A wizard did it" is necessitated by previous religious belief we can still ask "how did the wizard do it".

The Mystery of Language One of the greatest mysteries of modern science in general, and evolutionary biology in particular, is regarding the origins of human language. One famous author on the subject, Bernard Campbell, states flatly, "We simply do not know, and never will, how or when language began." Students of this subject are initially exposed to the dismissive terms used to describe the six primary theories (known as the 'bow-wow', 'pooh-pooh', 'ta-ta', 'la-la', 'ding-dong', and 'yo-he-ho' - and no I'm not joking!), all of which are considered completely inadequate. Recently, Noam Chomsky, one of the greatest political commentators alive but whose actual expertise is linguistics, proposed that language came about as the result of a sudden and inexplicable gene mutation in our ancestors. In other words, he claims that the only way to explain language is not via the typical means of evolutionary biology, where incremental mutations occur and a trait gradually evolves. Since there are no other species of animals that even come close to our ability to speak, it is clear that humans are atypical in this gift, and 'something' must have happened in us that didn't happen in any other animal. Somehow FoxP2 gene, which we share with apes worked in us because of our bigger brain + we have developed language organ too. For details "The Kingdom of Speech" Book by Tom Wolfe. Another world-famous psychologist, Steven Pinker, has done ground-breaking research in children's acquisition of languages, and argues that languages are innate in humans - without really explaining how this innateness came about. What is truly fascinating in all of this is that the one gift that the Quran explicitly mentions as having been divinely bestowed on Adam is that of language: And we taught Adam the names of all things (2: 31) And of His miracles is the creation of the heavens and earth, and the differences in your languages and skin colors - truly in this are clear signs for all of the creation (30:22) Allah mentions the blessings He has given to mankind, Al-Raḥmān; He taught the Quran, created man, and taught him eloquent speech. Language cannot be explained by modern science, because it was a Divine gift bestowed on us, and only us, from between all of the creation. So: which of the favors of your Lord will you deny?

Evolutionist’s attempts to explain every feature of organisms in terms of survival began to show signs of exhaustion years ago. When it came to things that are simply beautiful, with no survival function, they have given up and euphemistically labeled them “spandrels”, as admitting overtly these features are purely decorative would be a concession, however tacit, that there is a designer with an aesthetic sense.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:20-22

Can you re do the video without the music. Unnecessary and way too loud.

God is greatest....and One God created and still creating eveything...

Scripture provides us with plausible explanations. Evolution provides implausible assumptions.

“There is this great difference between the works of men and the works of God, that the same minute and searching investigation which displays the defects and imperfections of the one, brings out also the beauties of the other. If the most finely polished needle on which the art of man has been expended be subjected to a microscope, many inequalities, much roughness and clumsiness, will be seen. But if the microscope be brought to bear on the flowers of the field, no such result appears. Instead of their beauty diminishing, new beauties and still more delicate, that have escaped the naked eye, are forthwith discovered; beauties that make us appreciate, in a way which otherwise we could have had little conception of, the full force of the Lord's saying, 'Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, That even Solomon, in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of these'.” from _The Two Babylons,_ by Alexander Hislop

There’s no such thing as natural selection. What you have is the natural elimination of maladaptive mutations, and of once viable characteristics when an ecosystem breaks down. Evolution is the product of epigenetics as specific genetic streams negotiate new niches at the inception of a new stable ecosystem, as the ecosystem itself leads these streams to new specificity, thereby resolving itself.

There can't be any mixing of body plans, any more than you can mix Bach and Disco music (something only a crazed cretin would even try).

The premises aren't exactly true. You need to take into consideration that mutations that produce one large benefit in conjunction with several small drawbacks may have a net positive. In those cases drawbacks may be passed on to coming generations. Also, useless features with zero cost can also be passed on. The negative aspect of such features can depend of the immediate surroundings, causing certain features to motivate their carriers into environments where the useless feature brings some benefit. Same with negative features. No feature is inherantly negative. It's always dependent on the current environment and circumstances. Patterns are often the result of reduced cost. Think of a mathematical expression. Is it more efficient to store a huge table of values, or is it more efficient to store one single equation? Or vector graphics. Is it more efficient to store every single pixel, like a .raw-format, or is it more efficient to express it in curves and fields? What is the most efficient way to get two legs? Copy and mirror an already existing one. Symmetry is a result of optimization. Starfish and jellyfish are even more symmetric. Most patterns found in nature can actually be expressed in terms of mathematic formulas. A slight change in the algorithm gives a different shaped leaf. If it's not obviously too costly, it will probably live on like a variation. Just like four leaf clovers. Then it only takes isolation and time to produce new species. Finally, just because we can't think of circumstances where features are beneficial doesn't mean they don't exist. We know extremely little of the behaviours of plants and animals that long ago. Stay curious. Stay humble.

Variation != Adaptation. Next.

we are all alive here to enjoy all of this beauty and yet we are too proud to thank any single omni individual who sustained all the cells in us. as long as it is not one God we are content to believe in anything

The best part of this video and the comments is that the Darwinain can not comment. They just watched in silence and pain. LOL.

Quran talks about beauty as an proof of intelligent design

Romans 1:25 KJV "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

Dear Mr. Darwin’: nature is baroque, don’t try to fix it.

Demonic music with heavy drums is not a fit illustration of beauty in nature.

Telos!!! God's not,obviously, nature's

How foolish to admire nature, i.e. the product, instead of God, the Producer. Psalm 53:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and vile in their ways; there is no one who does good.

imagine a consistent atheist commending you of your certain "gifts"(artistic, cognitive,so on) :"you are so evolved!" thanks but no thanks, i am somewhat reluctant to fully accept your genuine compliment. i wouldn't used that e word on anyone, "gifted" works fine for most of us