turbokatsu20
How many contractors arrive on site and incredulously say "what was the last guy thinking?" and actually mean it?
Just because we don't understand the reasoning yet isn't strong evidence of incompentant designs, it's more evidence of our own incompentance.
We used to think that the appendix was vestigial and useless, we used to think that 'Junk dna' was a thing. With more time and research we now know how wrong we were. I'll take the downvotes and predict that we'll keep finding out how wrong we are long into the future on this subject.
I personally struggle to understand why a site full of techies can't see the human body for what it is, a genuine masterpiece of engineering with the clear and unmistakable hallmarks of purpose and higher order systems design.
Which, in our experience as engineers, is only ever the product of deliberate intelligence and any claim of exception should really raise eyebrows. Anyone who builds anything should have no trouble with this.
Based on that, I don't believe that the human body was designed for gender fluidity, in fact it is clearly deliberately set up to be binary. Any deviation from that default, in human beings, is unintended error. Perhaps due to deleterious genetic mutation or other entropic effects normally seen in complex systems.
Regardless of what you believe though, the safest thing to say is that we don't fully understand the systems in the body yet, and so Chesterton's Fence should apply. And ESPECIALLY so, when it's deciding whether to perform irreversible surgical work on a vulnerable population.
Until then we'll just have to hear about outlier findings drip by drip so as not to upset established lore for the materialist West.
It works alright.
Also, your second point is the wrong question being asked. The first is "how likely is it that life arose by chance in a lifeless universe?" The second should be "how likely is it that this ordered and organised system in front of me is the product of engineering and intelligence?"
Based on what we know about information management systems, it's extremely likely that any information management system that we stumble across is the product of intelligence and intention.
Even the behaviour that most people call 'evolution' relies on our genetic information system.
We have never in our history, ever, seen a system work with such and so many deliberate intentions in managing encoded information that wasn't the product of deliberate intention.
The burden of proof is on those who say that the work of all the software engineers on this website could all be done if you just leave a computer on for enough time. By this logic, the computer left alone will design its own hardware and supply chain, its own OS, its own backup system too, etc etc.
We create systems, we know enough about them to know how hard they are to maintain. And how much effort it takes to create a working system. Even a python hello world is built on >thousands of hours of software engineering. Why should something like the cell be considered any differently?
Also, the longer any complex but lifeless structure in that scenario exists, the more likely it is to be destroyed by natural forces that we know and operate with every day.
It's not likely, in fact, it takes more faith to believe in those odds than it does to believe that humans are the deliberately engineered.
The further we push the boundaries of what we know about engineering, the more far fetched that paradigm becomes. I predict that mankind will see more successful breakthroughs when they start looking at organic systems through the lens of deliberate system design rather than spending so long kidding ourselves that it was all achieved by chance against impossible odds.
I do enjoy your videos, especially the rules for rulers one, which I often think about when I need to humanise politicians. It's inevitable that they end up compromising every moral fibre of their being on the way to power, so I shouldn't be surprised or outraged.
If nobody else is really that fussed about it, why should you be?