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 : 0:9:59


[youtube X04LAXvfptw]


25 Comments

  1. 09205479428
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    How does ” natural … How does ” natural selection” factor work in the program ? I think as a mutation would occur, natural selection factor has to be made by “intellectual ” affirmation so that such mutation would be adapted for the next generation, otherwise if it had not received positive affirmation from ” consumers”, the mutation would fade. Affirmation from consumers can be done by the participation of end users for the program. Hmmm, am i missing how the program was made ?

  2. Subher0
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    … and again what … … and again what you try to make of it is that its simple organisms> *WHAM* humans… no. Take into account that this earth is 4.5 BILLION years old and that for at least 3.5 billion years life has been around. This gives it ample time to evolve, and it has.

    Faith in my eyes, is a silly concept, and I don’t take things on faith.

  3. Subher0
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    2. You say the … 2. You say the universe popped into the existence “out of nowhere”. Clearly this shows, again, how little you know about what we know of the beginning of the universe. I’m sorry but no scientist will EVER say the universe “popped into existance out of nothing”, that’s what you make of it.

    3. Mutation is a part in the evolutionary process, so it’s not “mutation and evolution” it’s just evolution. Pond scum seems to demean it but yes, simple organisms turned into more complex organisms. [cont.]

  4. Subher0
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    There are several … There are several points: 1. You do not understand what atheism is. Atheism is a matter of not believing, it has no doctrine, and it cannot by defenition be a religion. I don’t even know how to respond to your political arm argument, other then that it’s absurd. Scientists being “high priests”? Without these scientists we’d still be in the dark ages, so a little respect is in order… [cont.]

  5. TravellerFellow
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    Atheism surely is. … Atheism surely is. Its political arm is Socialism, its High Priests are, I use this term loosely, “Scientists”. so here you go. In the beginning there was nothing at all. Suddenly out of no where, there the Universe just popped into existence. Then also suddenly life just popped into existence, due to probability. yeah. After this, due to mutation and evolution, pond scum became human life. sure, sure, sure. anything you say there Pal. ha ha ha ps: the above has to be taken ON FAITH!

  6. Subher0
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    First off atheism … First off atheism is not a religion.

    Second if THAT was “thesame crap” then go read the MILLION responses people already made to your question… now who’s moving hurdles? Stop parroting your creationist protagonists.

    And again you ask the wrong question. Everything happened clearly as it has, else we were not here, and it doesn’t need to have a reason. If you want to boil this down to that all this had to have a beginning [and preferrably intelligent] we can just continue from there.

  7. TravellerFellow
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    your comment = … your comment = typical Atheist Religion. THe SAME crap that you & your ilk accuse the “Stupid Christians” of utilizing. “Come back after you learn this”. of course the “knowledge threshold” (according to You) is never quite achieved to YOUR satisfaction, so you can continue ad infinitum, setting ever higher hurdles. nice but no cigar, dude. I don’t ask you to prove a negative re: “God”. just PROVE YOUR contention that all that there is just “happened”. formula & postulates only pls.

  8. Subher0
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    Learn what natural … Learn what natural selection is and mutation before you ask questions showing how unknowledgeable you are on the subjects.

    Then return with fresh questions.

    [tip: read from wikipedia or talkorigins ‘dot’ org and not only religious sources]

  9. Subher0
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    Nobody did. Why do … Nobody did. Why do you assume there is a “who”?

  10. TravellerFellow
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    Mr Marshall uses … Mr Marshall uses simple analogies and you just repeat four words. I insist that you SPECIFY just HOW these three processes “cause life in the first place. and Exactly HOW pond slime “mutates” itself, “naturally selects” itself, and then reproduces itself, into an organism “higher up on the evolutionary scale”

  11. TravellerFellow
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    would you please … would you please explain the origin of these “rules of nature” ? since they existed when Nothing existed, who or what (exactly please) Determined these “rules of nature”

  12. Subher0
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    No this is how it … No this is how it is, it is not perceived it is just a wrong comparison between evolution and something that only looks similar but isn’t thesame at all. If you perceive this model as a reflection of the real evolution your perception is just distorted. That’s not my opinion it is just a plain fact… Look evolution directly doesn’t give me happiness, that is determined by other things, but the constant attacks toward scientific facts sure make me unhappy…

  13. tristenmc
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    Yes, I saw that, … Yes, I saw that, and I saw some problems with his model. But everything is how you percieve things. So I can totally understand your point of view. I hope your model of life gives you all the happiness in the world. Take care.

  14. Subher0
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    BTW He’s only using … BTW He’s only using random mutation but random mutation alone is not good enough you need natural selection, mutation and reproduction…

  15. Subher0
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    If you really want … If you really want to see a computerised model of evolution check out cdk007’s “Why Intelligent Design is Wrong, part I”. Remember, the goal is set by the environment and humans clicking ads IS NOT natural selection…

  16. Subher0
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    You cannot compare … You cannot compare the English language and a DNA strand, but I would say the english language to be less tolerant… The rules of nature are without mercy, but a person with an extra toe will survive… when “word” turns into “ward” it becomes entirely different, this is not thesame with DNA. This guy is comparing cows with horses. Realise that and this video becomes totally nonsense…

  17. tristenmc
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    True, but are the … True, but are the rules of nature more or less tolerate than those of the english language? Especially since a DNA strand is considerably longer than that of a standard ad?

  18. Subher0
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    I grasp the concept … I grasp the concept. The clicked ads survive and I guess don’t evolve because they are fit to survive since they are comprehensable. The ads that get few clicks will evolve letters to see if it attracts more people then… Well, this is very subject to interests of people, but it still isn’t correct because indeed as he says evolution doesn’t follow the rules of english language but of nature… letters aren’t natural they are manmade…

  19. tristenmc
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    If you watch, the … If you watch, the goal was to write a better ad. And he showed how you could put it on the internet and track people’s clicks on the ad. So of course the ones that would get the clicks would survive, and those that did not would fail. That was the goal. . .it’s difficult to grasp the concept unless you watch the entire series.

  20. Subher0
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    He says there is a … He says there is a goal… he clearly set no goal for his words to go to.

  21. Subher0
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    Words evolving is … Words evolving is bullocks because the words are not evolving to suit their environment. What is the purpose of the word evolving if the evolved word after so many generations is uncomprehensable. Nothing is dictating the evolution of the words so they evolve random and stay that way, lol this video does not at all make sense

  22. tristenmc
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    If you can show me … If you can show me your sources, that suggest that this idea is not viable, I would love to see it.

  23. donnieharrison2
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    He is going after … He is going after an idea of evolution that was proven wrong, and proposing an alternative to the idea that was proven wrong before he started. We have included the following since the times of just mutation and natural selection. Speciation, extension, genetic dirt, gene flow, allelic frequency and anything I might have forgotten.

  24. tristenmc
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    He’s not arguing … He’s not arguing against evolution, per se. He’s giving his hypothesis for an intelligent process for evolution.

    Darwinian evolution can be broken down to three basic components. Random mutation, natural selection, and time. It’s the “random mutation” part that is the most controversal part of the equation.

    It’s going to take an open mind, and a larger reality perspective to get it. He does have a very interesting case if you watch the entire series.

  25. donnieharrison2
    Posted November 2, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    Matter violates an … Matter violates an energy law? Help me to understand. Also have you heard of modulation? If you were to play a modulated signal without demodulating the signal it would just be noise. A radio demodulates the modulated signal to get the audio signal. What about Speciation, extinction, genetic drift, gene flow. Evolution is not random. Altering Chromosomes but not the DNA, explain that to me.

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>