What reinforcement or rebuttal can you offer for The Theory of Everything YouTube video by Trey Smith?

I'm trying not to dismiss this entirely out of hand based on the fact that he doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. I'll try to take the points made in the evolution video as they stand. (I'm doing this in real-time so bear with me.) First. His notions about fine tuning are wrong. See His dismissal of evolution because it violates the second law of thermodynamics misses the fact that the sun is a giant entropy removing machine. We have many, many "recorded examples" of new species "becoming". His definition of species is... not rigorous. Evolution does not violate biogenesis. It is based on biogenesis. Abiogenesis is a likely prediction of evolution, but we don't have enough evidence. The Hoyle quote is an old false analogy. See: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy Why so much emphasis on the cell? Early life likely wasn't cellular. You do not need a cell and the "digital coding" to happen at the same time. Just the coding will do. His assertion that you need "advanced coding" for basic life is false. (Why can't it have "junk code in there..."?) (I'm getting a little bored here. Nothing I haven't heard many times before. Nothing that hasn't been explained very well before.) He's assuming we start with DNA. This is likely false. Why do you need trillions of strands of DNA? He doesn't get how DNA works. It comes out of a single strand (or two for sexed species). When he goes off on Chuck Missler, I stopped because what's the point. He doesn't understand evolution. There isn't more to be said.

Well , there, I decided to give it half an hour of my time. Main impression: he is rambling. It's a concept(name) dropping exercise, which saturates you until you are tenderised for the occasional mystical reference implantation. After 30 mins my head is swimming. UPDATE: I have been looking for a way to put this succinctly. If you are open minded to that sort of thing and like to give the benefit of doubt then this is the equivalent of: A denial of service attack against your critical faculties To be fair, the mystical undertone and grandiose music is not that much different from that of popular science documentaries like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Universe_(TV_series) or BBC documentaries. Shock and awe is what makes science interesting, after all. Overall, he seems to deliver the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe argument, i.e. how can it be that with such low probability on all levels we are here. This kind of mystical question you can hear on professional documentaries too. (See [2] at 1:45, and many others). But his conclusions, if you can call them that are very vague and suggestive. Resumé: He produces a 3 hour video to build up the premise for a relatively simple and known argument. This is quite a waste of time. His connection to religious texts are arbitrary and even these texts are taken out of context[1]. So he does both science and religion a disservice. He is not a bad presenter, I think, for a guy with only a webcam and a microphone. But he just saturates you with too many concepts and assumed relationships between them that at some point you switch off. But I guess that's the method. If he were to make SciShow or Vsauce type videos, he would have a much harder time coming across as believable. (Disclaimer: This is not an exhaustive analysis, of course. It is more of an impression. Even the short videos are over an hour long. I could only listen to it while doing some other things.) [1] Mystical references At 6:46 he decides to flog his own theory along the lines of: words are sounds, which are vibrations, i.e. waves, I suppose . Elementary particles are waves. Therefore a word can have created everything. (from some Hebrew text he doesn't specify) Hmmmm. Definitely original, but highly questionable conclusion, to say the least, which is completely suggestive, just hangs in the air and does not get explored further in any manner. At 20:24 he quotes 'God created man in his own image' and even snorts that this is a 'big claim', sounding half sceptical. But there is no follow-up or explanation and no apparent connection with what he says before or after. It left me baffled. [2]

I watched the section about the genetic code around the 20 minute mark. It's extremely obvious he is just making shit up. He is inventing "evidence" to support his theory of God. for example he claims that the DNA information is degrading. "we are loosing things not gaining" this is complete nonsense he claims that the DNA in the past was stronger. and that we are loosing information. this is just conjecture at best and a boldface lie at worst. He has zero evidence to back up his claim except for the assumption that the earth is 6000 years old. and that entropy degrades things. but clearly that is not how life works, so his theory is already debunked if you do the most basic scientific investigation. this clearly demonstrates that he isn't creating his concepts from observations of the natural world. he is explicitly inventing fictional explanation to fit the needs of how the bible is written. This is modern myth making, its no different than the story about how ursa major and ursa minor gained their long tails. if I'm not mistaken they where thrown into the sky by their tails by a great warrior. so their tails got stretched. He clearly has zero idea how DNA works. He claims that there is zero junk DNA. He is redefining junk DNA to this ethereal meaningless definition that isn't even a reasonable description of what is in the DNA. Junk DNA has noting to do with its function junk DNA explicitly refers to its ability to code for Proteins (originally) or in modern understanding, whether the sequence of the DNA matters to its function. for ensample telomeres are junk DNA because the order of the nucleotides is meaningless, but they serve an extremely important role in protecting the DNA by preventing the replication process from chopping of the ends where important coding DNA is. Instead the copying process only cuts off the end of the junk DNA. ironically, there is a shit ton of junk DNA that is specifically there to facilitate evolution. In a section of DNA that codes for a protein there are introns and extrons. the introns are cut out to produce the final mRNA that is used for translation into the protein. The introns are believed to be there to allow mutations to accrue without damaging the coding parts. specifically transposons or "jumping genes." these genes serve no purpose unto their own other than copy and pasting themselves all over the genome. though they do have a useful features, if two transposons are on either side of a protein modular, an extron, then its possible that the extron can be copied to elsewhere in the genome. Because the introns are so large its more likely the extron will jump into an intron instead of another extron which would damage the function of the protein. this new extron can be accessed by alternative RNA processing to utilize this extron to make a new and novel protein that can be put to use. then he makes the nonsense and ludicrous claim that there isn't a single mutational would destroy the functionality of the whole organism. "zero mutating parts" which directly conflicts with his interpretation of entropy "degrading DNA" by saying a single mutation could kill the animal. which is it? is the DNA loosing information or is a single bit of information loss deadly to the animal? he simply does not understand how DNA functions. there are 20 amino acids but 64 possible codes for amino acids. usually the last digit in a codon UUG GAT et cetera, will code for the same amino acid. and even if the amino acid is changed, if its changed to a similar amino acid in the same group (Vander wall force, hydrogen bonding, ionic bonding, or covalent boding) then its called a silent mutation which means nothing happens at the functional level. also, sickle cell anemia disproves his claim because it is a single nucleotide mutation in the hemoglobin gene that dose not outright kill the organism. So how dose he explain that mutation clearly happening? when the DNA has zero mutational parts? I'm willing to bet that all of his points can be easily disproven with a simple education on the topic. some of his claims will be harder to discuss because we simply don't know the nature of some topics like the origin of our universe from but his arguments on those topics are simply the fallacious argument known as  the god of the gaps. I'm moving my conclusion into the comments because they address the nature of his arguments in respect to what creationists do to pedal their arguments instead of, as requested, the substance of his arguments themselves.

I began watching the evolution video and gave up after about 40 minutes since he was merely rambling. Up to that point he had rehashed more or less every creationist misunderstanding about evolution, cosmology, information theory, genetics and basic physics I've ever heard, but added nothing new or revolutionising. I liked the music though, reminded me of the soundtrack from The Gladiator and Civilisation IV.

I have watched the first 7 minutes of the video on evolution, and I can guess what's to come. So I'll just give a rebuttal of what he talks about in the first 7 minutes. 1) The fine-tuning argument: A quick google search will explain why the argument is flawed. 2), 3) Entropy trend, biogenesis: First, the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. Applying it to a complex system which actively interacts with a lot of sources of mass and energy is not as simple as the guy makes it out to be. And complex DNA have not emerged over-night. People have generated organs from single cells. I assume that at some point this guy would also talk about souls and stuff like that. People have actually grown a complete rat from a few special skin cells: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912375,00.html As I said, I haven't watched the entire video. I guess all the guy does is take some kind of scientific principle and inappropriately apply them to topics where the principle is invalid, and concludes that the theory of evolution is just a myth.

It really should be taught in school (along side critical thinking) that if you are not an expert yourself, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to disagree with an expert consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_for_evolution If you are arguing with nearly 99.9% of people who have dedicated their lives to studying earth and life sciences, when you don't even understand the science, you are committed to ignorance, and I have no reason to listen to you. THERE IS NO REAL DEBATE WHATSOEVER between creation and evolution, anymore than there is between flatearthers and the rest of us.  Only dishonest rhetoric. If you read the rebuttals to any creationist writing, you may start to understand this. The video makes claims regarding genetics, which come from the book Genetic Entropy by John Sanford.  I read that book.  I believed it true for awhile, it seems entirely reasonable and well referenced. The problem is, its a giant fat lie.  I don't know what else to call it... John Sanford actually is a bona fide source on Genetics, its impossible he isn't aware of the lies/misquotes in the book. When you start digging into his quotes and references and rebuttals by anyone in science, the whole fallacious thing comes tumbling down like a house of cards. Read this concise rebuttal: http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/ If you disagree with Evolution, don't tell me about it, because I'll block you.  I don't want to see anything from people that committed to ignorance in my feed.

This video needs two Oscars firstly For the most bullshit per minute sustained for two or more hours "Everything" Secondly For the presenter with the most obnoxious style "Trey Smith" I'm with on this A denial of service attack against your critical faculties