Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

I barely had any teachers - ever.

That's a reasonable explanation of why you think somebody pulling their tongue out at me has answered a question.

And what about you? How much is your mind opened to intelligent design of life on the Earth, for example?
Now watch this: you cannot deny that all our development as humans is predetermined by the info in the chromosomes upon conception. The programming is so mind blowing that even the diseases that we might be exposed to are preset there (high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, etc. ... or at least the medical science claims for this to be so).
How do you call this: intelligent design or evolution?
BTW you don't have a single piece of verifiable evidence how far this present programming may go – for 1 generation, 5 generations ... 1000 years, 1 BN years or how much?
There is more - the chromosomes preset what body will we have, how far out mind may develop, etc. ... but they do not preset what information we might come across during our lifetime, and how can we use it. So the evidences show that half of the things are predetermined by and intelligent design, and half of the things are exposed to casino events ... and even your persuasion that the casino always wins cannot exclude the hypothesis that the things might be a result of both intelligent design and evolution.

Honestly speaking - not the whole, ... and do you know why - after hearing an introduction like 'in every part of our body, every organ, every tissue, every cell, every gene ... and someway in our body (whatever this might mean) ... we contain 3.5 BN years of evolution of the Earth' I personally expected some mind blowing evidences that this and this part of our DNA has been formed by this and this process with the fish and dinos, and passed through the ages by this and this mechanics ... instead of listening about 'rocks at the right age', 'rocks of the right type' & 'rocks that are exposed to the surface'.
As nothing of the kind happened in the next few minutes of the video I gave up to watch further.
BTW our DNA goes back to a common female ancestor ... human!! and does not continue further ... to fishes and dinos.
Claiming that our DNA is formed by the dinosaurs is something thrown at random into the air ... without any serious evidences.

he difference tween us is that Ive red your side's texts voraciously when younger, then as I lernt more science, the obvious BS value of scripture became obvious.

. Genetics is an interesting set of barcodes. These are added to or substituted in each population. Medical science has not yet pronounced that ones susceptibility to certain diseases is only set by ones genes. WE are undergoing an "epidemic"of diabetes that seems to be associated with our changing eating habits (In fact, medical science is calling it "Diabesity" to indicate the strong environmental association between obesity and diabetes type 2)

Don't you recall that humans share avbout a 98% exact copy of our genes with chimpanzees? Even the chimps chromosome 1 and 2 have been fused (exactly) to form a single chromosome in the human gene complement.
We also share a declining match of genes with"lower" animals . The commonality of these gene expressions (like HOX genes) in every animal above annelids an starfish. I find that quite compelling . As far as time, I have no idea, and I cant give a reasoned answer other than the comparative development for these lower animals that have still remained since their fossils first appered in the record.

Now youre just making **** up out of ignorance. I don't know how yyou arrive at that. As far as "Things displayed during ones lifetime" There is a whole newer area of "Epigenetics" where the DNA strands that occur as "junk/noncoding' or are outside the genome itself, have shown to express some unusual effects in an indicidual and an individuals offspring. (Like prenatal alcoholism in several generations even after a generation never became alcoholic, or generational responses to smoking ). Again, theres a lot of work being done now and it seems to be showing valid relationships


Intelligent Design is merely a copout from doing ones homework. Im saddened that you didn't get anything from SHubins video where he explained several things quite nicely
1He explained the concept of the "right ages of right rocks) as an unspoken "PROOF of how falsification works.

2He explained the sequesntial development of appenages as seen in the genome of fish to amphibians (and he mentione dbirds and higher animals)
3More importantly, he discussed the concepts of "knock out" genes that, if they are not allowed to express (as if they weren't there0 a higher animal , like an amphibian would develop appendages from lower animals (like a fish)
He didn't talk about that but a scientist from a Dupont lab had won a Nobel Prize in the 90's for research into developing "knock out genetics" as a way to test development of embryos.
Its not Haeckels BS but is an outgrowth of what neo Haeckelian developmental bio I about.

Shubin did his speech very entertainingly (I saw him at a different venue where he was more magisterial). His speech was very approachable and was understandable to those who weren't lab rats.

Our DNA most definitely contains sequences which are in common with fish and creatures far more primitive than fish. As a matter of fact, the vast bulk of our DNA derives from single cellular functionality.


Nobody claimed that we had/have and DNA from dinosaurs. And that's because dinosaurs are not in our ancestral line. Nor are any modern animals within our ancestral line. But we all do share common ancestors, which is evident in the DNA.

BESIDES, there are NO samples of any dinosaur DNA available from anywhere. I don't know where he got that other than his annoying penchant to just make things up as he goes.
DNA degrades rather quickly (geologically speaking)

One might think from that that you believe a man as urbane and learned as Ovid expected us to take literally Book II of Metamorphoses rather than what he really meant. Taken literally it is not only bullshit but totally ridiculous and yet here it is as one of the most famous books in Western literature.

Do you never stop and wonder why? I think you have too much confidence in your own intelligence fm. Some fish swim in little ponds.

An Intelligent Designer could, theoretically, fix and coordinate all the readings on the instruments you rely upon. For a good laugh.

Shubin sung his song and departed for the next gig. "Pretty much" was a torpedo amidships. If you allowed it to escape your notice----well, you would wouldn't you? as Mandy Rice Davies famously said.

Just as " To deck the dainty dames of Rome and make them fine and nice" (the last line of Book II) was a torpedo amidships to any notion of a literal and pedantic reading of Metamorphoses.

my but your heads in a whirl today. Cn you collect your thoughts, pose a reasonably coherent question and then , maybe follow up with some valid relevant facts?

Ill wait until you finish patting yourself on your back as to how intelligent you are.

Melville used the same idea in MD. Schopenhauer spelled it out. That the privileged ladies float their self-indulgence on a sea of tears. What the Democratic Party is supposed to be doing something about.

you fully deflated yet?

You're obviously out of your depth fm. Stick to the rockpool.

its obvious that youre unable to comprehend the "rockpool" so you substitute with waggle and prattle.
Its fun trying to figure what planet spendi is sitting on today. Maybe Im alone in that (especially since Im apparently one of the few who's not got you on ignore

Do you think I give a flying **** who has me on Ignore? They are defining themselves. Not me.

Do you think we wouldn't neutralise anybody who could raise the dead? Such an ability is exceedingly marketable I should have thought. And imagine the US food industry if somebody popped up who could feed five thousand with a few loaves and fishes.

Do you think we would have allowed Uri Geller to roam around freely if we believed he could bend metal by force of brainwaves?

So you are arguing that there must be design because diseases are the result of flaws in the design?

That's childish, Mr "Academic".

I don't know what do you mean by 'the obvious ... became obvious' ... and I don't dare even to ask.
Yes, it is obvious that the scripture is cross-cultural misunderstanding of something, but you cannot say for sure whether this something was really 'obvious BS value' or not before reconstructing the original ... for you don't have the ability to separate the real value from the BS value.


You are straw-manning my words with this 'only'. I didn't say 'only'. If you don't believe me you may write in Google: list of genetic disorders wiki
and to read there what you will read.


... and the acidification of the blood, part of which is the CO2, NO2 and SO2 story in the air ... and in the potable water.


I haven't heard about this ... it may be true, but our DNA does not go further than the first female. Just don't tell me that this first female has originated from ALL chimpanzees.


This does not prove anything. The software code also 'shares' the same 'declining' letters with the criminal novels, for example, but this does not mean that the software code originates from criminal novels.


So, you deny that the genes predetermine our physics, our mental development, the color of our eyes, etc. I am not even going to comment this.


So, you claim that the construction of an airplane is a 'copout' (whatever this might mean) ... or perhaps the invention of the computer is a 'copout', or maybe science itself is 'copout' - for all these are products of intelligent design.

Since you mentioned straw men in your post, Herald, I thought it appropriate to mention that you changed Intelligent Design to intelligent design when making that final comment...which was a straw man of sorts.

This 'most definitely' is not confirmed by the backtrack of the DNA code from the computer analysis.
Besides, if the modern human originated from Africa only all these 'rocks at the right age', 'rocks of the right type' & 'rocks that are exposed to the surface' that are not situated in Africa are irrelevant to our origin as species.