Perry Marshall explains in clear terms that DNA is clearly designed. It is necessary to suspend your beliefs and approach this subject with open minded skeptism and allow the “information” to come into your mind. You will see that there really is no other explanation. All life was designed.

The question then changes to who designed it? It’s a legitimate question that we simply can’t answer. But what we can say is that life does have a purpose since we were designed. For more information please visit Perry Marshall’s website at

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com

Duration : 0:10:0


[youtube 3LCyPat9ME4]


21 Comments

  1. BrazilianGirlDoll
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    LOL This Perry … LOL This Perry Marshall is a joke, and so is his site…he doesn’t allow comments on his youtube page (obviously)…another charlatain in our world..SIGH

  2. vlddas
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    The Creator is … The Creator is easily available for comments on what He created and there is a natural process for interaction, which is mutually pleasing (BaktyA mAm aBijAnAti), but you are not using it. The consequence is that you must stay in illusion.
    Vedas are the knowledge of God, presented for people, and I would recommend to study them from Hare Krishnas.
    Ultimately, all you need, is love, and everything else you can get by your love. Also, the divine knowledge will be gradually revealed.

  3. tristenmc
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    in the proper place … in the proper place of the genome for the fur to be placed in the appropriate area of the animal. For example, a furrier tail isn’t going to be much help against the harsher environments. So that 1/64 chance would have to be decreased depending on how large the genome is and where that codon could be best placed for beneficial survival.

    So again, what would you hypothesize is the probability of a beneficial copy error mutation?

  4. tristenmc
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    What would you say … What would you say the probability is of an organism to incur a beneficial copying error mutation? Would you say it’s more likely to have a negative or neutral mutation? For example. . .let’s say the climate changed, which we know it did many times, if a copy error of one codon could make the difference in an organism (for example, more fur or undercoat) So that’s a one in 64 chance that the species will survive. But one would also have to assume that that codon has to be placed . cont.

  5. Darwinsgift
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    If you mean “error … If you mean “error correction” as the maintaining of previously “switched off” DNA information that is still present in the genome. In cases of a species being bottlenecked by decreasing numbers and an island race of a few individuals still surviving, these dormant traces do show re-appearance. Although not an area of expertise for me the mutation rates in close relative breeding have been known for centuries perhaps even millenia. Laws preventing this over human history give credence to this!

  6. Darwinsgift
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    The DNA capability … The DNA capability to eat the new plant would already be in place as a mutation. My own inability to eat fruit proves this can happen! The other changes would come from the caterpillar’s ability to blend in with the new plant, say the darker ones falling prey to birds and lighter ones blending in which leads to selective breeding! The DNA follows the parents and nature does the selecting with each subsequent generation. The original moths will continue comparitavely unchanged.

  7. tristenmc
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    Also, if random … Also, if random mutation is good for species to evolve. . .why is there so much error correction mechanisms built into DNA to stop it from “evolving”. Does that make sense?

  8. tristenmc
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    Using your analogy, … Using your analogy, it wasn’t an error in the DNA that caused the caterpillar to be forced into a different environment. . .but the different environment would force the caterpillar to adjust or die. Now this change in environment would cause their DNA to change drastically enough to be uncompatible to mate with the origional species (Assuming that the caterpillar would grow to a moth and place it’s prodigy on the same “wrong” plant). Is that not logical or am I missing something?

  9. Darwinsgift
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    It is possible for … It is possible for comparitavely fast speciation. If a moth that relies on a particular food plant for its caterpillar should lay eggs on the wrong one then the caterpillar resulting will imprint the new plant for its young. Within a few generations small changes can appear that stops breeding between the two previously identical species forming a sub species.

  10. tristenmc
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    What’s your … What’s your thoughts on the difference in the randomness of the mutations from what happens in copying errors from that of radiation?

    Also, you mentioned previously that we were able to separate fruit fly species by differing their food supply. So one would assume that it can be done sooner than millions of years. . .so what’s your thoughts on that?

  11. Darwinsgift
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    Radiation acts like … Radiation acts like a poison on mutation, it can cause damage to the genetic code and cause sterility. Most life can only cope with gradual change hence most of the species that ever lived are extinct. Adding radiation and expecting a new species is just daft. Adding it slowly over a million years however would cause a change that evolved to cope with it or an extinction. The same can be said for adding any outside influence.

  12. tristenmc
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    Ok, another … Ok, another question. . .what do you think was the reason why the radiation experiments with fruit flies did not produce a beneficial fruit fly or a different species?

  13. Darwinsgift
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    Not instantly … Not instantly between a generation yet if the advantage is in keeping with the changing enviroment then it will aid survival. This man talks about better evolution as if it has a goal to reach. If the enviroment warms up again or a new enviroment is found that is warmer then the hairless would have the advantage yet this would not be considered a backward evolutionary step or blind chance.

  14. tristenmc
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    Do you believe that … Do you believe that a change in one letter of the DNA code will give you fur or an undercoat?

  15. Darwinsgift
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    Wow! you never seem … Wow! you never seem to grasp this ….If W represents “hair” and A represents “Fur” and R represents “Undercoat” then M represents “Body Fat” what you get is “WARM”

    The addition of each letter represents a stage that can assist in a cold situation!

    The outside influence will assist the next letter as the other letters will not have what it takes to survive! The world has changed in vast ways over time!

  16. tristenmc
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    Well the problem … Well the problem with that is that you will end up with a “cowd” or “wold” or “cwld” or “colw” first. And since that is not obeying the laws of language, that simply would not survive natural selection to get to warm. But intelligently you could select warm and then win. . .but that’s because YOU as an intelligent conscious being understand the laws of language. RANDOMNESS doesn’t.

  17. Darwinsgift
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    My point is that … My point is that the ouside influence will keep the letter W when it arrives then add A etc until WARM is achieved …. This would not take that long! I hope this helps!

  18. tristenmc
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    “If the planet … “If the planet froze, the word “WARM” would win!”

    True, how long would it take for the “random” mutation generator take to change the word from cold to warm?

  19. Darwinsgift
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    Antelopes do not … Antelopes do not evolve into giraffes yet a previous ancestor did evolve into both.

    DNA was not available for Darwin to understand! It does however fit with Darwins evolutionary theory!

    Your computer promram does not work because you only show 1 mutation and not the increase in numbers of each word with succesive mutation. If the planet froze, the word “WARM” would win! There is no outside influence in this mutation!

  20. tristenmc
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    Thanks for your … Thanks for your response. I’d be interested in hearing your criticism to the videos. :-)

  21. TheFallibleFiend
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    Just what Youtube … Just what Youtube needs. Another guy pontificating on stuff he doesn’t know anything about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>