No. Its DNA does not deal in functions. It does what it does empirically, without abstraction. In the standard creationist arguments, everything after the word "if" is bs. The detail of the missing transcript is enough for one post. No one can go into detailed argument with the contents of a damn video without putting hours and pages into it - that's why frauds use video: it puts the work on others. The detail of you declaring the obvious and common sense to be "laughable" is telling. So is the evocation of the old canard about chance-built peptide strings, apparently from the video. But digging that bs out of a video and refuting it from its assumptions would take an evening, not even counting watching the damn thing in the first place. Video without written and accountable argument is a charlatan's medium. And since style is all you've got, misrepresenting mine seems important to you. Certainly more comfortable for you than argument of your own. Meanwhile, your attempt to frame my requirement of a transcript as a demand for a spoon fed summary is noted - the recourse to personal attack is automatic with creationists, and never without misrepresentation. That's how creationists roll.