[Xichekolas]

> Given that our understanding has limits, this is far from certain.

That is a pretty big assumption to make. If you are saying that our understanding is limited at this point in time, then I'd agree. Barring loss of data/memory, our understanding will always be limited now compared to our understanding in the future.

But if you are claiming there is some fundamental upper bound to our understanding, and that a complete functional understanding of the human body is beyond that upper bound, then I have to ask what motivates that claim.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that kind of thinking is what supports flawed pseudoscience like "intelligent design" (not claiming you support that, and really not trying to open that can of worms; just drawing a parallel). Sure, if you assume that our understanding is already at some kind of limit, and then show something we can't explain, it follows naturally that it must have supernatural origins. If, on the other hand, you realize that our inability to explain something is most likely just a function of time (eventually we'll learn enough that we will be able to explain it), then the argument seems absurd.

[foldr]

>But if you are claiming there is some fundamental upper bound to our understanding, and that a complete functional understanding of the human body is beyond that upper bound

I'm claiming the first conjunct. I don't know whether or not a complete functional understanding of the human body is beyond our understanding.

I don't see why a claim that our understanding has certain fundamental limits should need to be justified. Rather, the opposite claim seems to require justification. If you look at any other animal on earth, this is obvious. Why should we be the only animal without limits?

This is not to suggest that what we happen to know right now is the upper limit, just that there is an upper limit.

>not claiming you support [intelligent design], and really not trying to open that can of worms

Oh please, this issue has nothing at all to do with ID.

> it follows naturally that it must have supernatural origins.

Or, more plausibly, that it has natural origins which are too complex for us to understand.