DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Angrboda]

Well, thank you for the additional information, but I am still not finding confirmation of your claims.  As noted, I did not find any on the original page you linked me to, so if it is there, or anywhere on that site, you will need to quote it and link me to it.  Otherwise I'm going to have to conclude that the link you gave does not support your claims.  The first of the new links you provided, while fascinating, doesn't provide confirmation of either of the claims I previously mentioned, either.  In particular, it explicitly says that a complete model of c. elegans had not yet been achieved.  The article dates to around 2006, and so that fact is not surprising, but it doesn't support your claim, either.  The second article you link to actually contradicts your claim by pointing out that a robotic embodiment of the model, whose limitations are unclear, did not simply sit there, but crashed into a wall, backed up, and moved away.  So you're 0 for 3 so far.  This doesn't seem to be trending in a good direction.  Do you have any actual confirmation of the two claims I discussed in my prior post?

You are welcome and it was a total flop, but I am so glad you find it interesting. They did use it to program a lego robot that had a motor, but no one in the entire world besides you is impressed that billions and billions of dollars can create a computer virtual brain that can do no more than crash an already motorized robot into a wall and then back away from it. And I did already mention the robot in my last post to you. Did you forget what I wrote? 
Anyway, after the original goal of creating a virtual worm flopped, they went to the motorized robot with just the virtual brain and now to just computer simulation of the worm. (Can you say, I want my billions of research dollars back?) I guess I could check the news article from 2012 when this originally happened, if you still don't believe me with three articles that maybe don't say those exact words I used, but none the less, make it very clear.

I won't pretend that I know enough about the experiment to call it a flop. That you have no hesitation in doing so may simply reflect your lack of understanding of the issue. Describing it as a flop is your word, and you appear to be a dumbass, so I'm not inclined to put a lot of stock in it unless you can document someone who actually does possess the requisite expertise and who also describes it as a flop. You claimed that the model, upon being activated, just sat there. A claim which appears clearly false. That you are not particularly adept at reasoning is not a particularly troubling failing. That you can't even complete the rather rudimentary task of documenting actual support for your claims is somewhat troubling. If you're not basing your claims upon the things you are reading, I have to wonder exactly what it is you are basing them on. The only obvious conclusion is that the supposed "facts" and claims you spout have their origin largely within your imagination, and that there is a significant disconnect between your brain and reality. Are you sure that you, too, do not have a psychotic disorder?