I haven't watched it yet but I'm going to guess they waffle about the unlikeliness of a protein molecule. Am I right?
Do they acknowledge redundancy? Did you know that the number of possible amino acid sequences that would result in a functional Cytochrome C protein molecule has been calculated to be a billion times larger than all the atoms in the known universe and all of those combinations would work equally well?
Did you know that each of those amino acid sequences can be constructed by numerous different sequences of DNA bases? The "language" of DNA is made up of just 4 "letters" - A,C,G and T.
Sequences of letters are read off in groups of 3 called codons.
ACGGCCTCGAATGCCTTC would be read as ACG GCC TCG AAT GCC TTC
If you do the maths you will see that there are 64 different codons or "words" that can be produced by this method.
A codon is comparable to the instructions for making one amino acid. There are a collection of 20 amino acids that living things can choose from to assemble proteins. (Actually a 21st can be assembled from the "stop" codon)
This is where the word redundancy comes in. There are 20 amino acids to be made but many more codons available.
It turns out that codons are often not too fussy about the third letter. If you want to make the amino acid alanine for example the codons GCT, GCC, GCA, or GCG will all do equally well.
Amino acids combine together like oddly shaped magnets that build a shape with various recesses and bumps. It is the physical shape of the molecule that does the work and it doesn't matter how you achieve that shape.
Then bear in mind that a shape that is approximately right will also function - just not as efficiently as the perfect shape. That gives us many more ways to make a functioning protein molecule that can later be shaped by evolution.
Imagine standing in a theatre in front of an audience of 10,000 people and saying something like 'how unlikely was is that every individual would end up here in your exact seat in this theatre on at precise moment?' It sounds impressive but actually it's nonsense. Any 10,000 individuals sat in any seat would still be an audience.
There are so many fallacies in conversations among creationists who hide from informed criticism. I would be happy to go through the video and point out more of their errors but I suspect that just like Hooby you will fail to engage in the conversation.
