Functionally Complex

Originally posted by dj2becker
Don't worry, that's the least of your worries.

All you need to do is explain which one came first, the chicken or the egg?

HAHAHAHAHAH


(tosser)

Originally posted by Halitose
Hmmmmm? I guess then there is no point in pontificating on how DNA make evolution from simple organisms to more complex ones impossible... :'(

Research the terms 'eukaryote and procaryote' and the differences and similarites in the structure of their DNA. Then come back and tell us all about it

Originally posted by dj2becker
Sigh...

You still don't get the point. I suppose you never will.

The bottom line is that DNA can only be produced with the help of at least 20 proteins, but these proteins can only be produced at the direction of DNA.

Which means that the only way this manufacturing process could have come about was if it all came into existance simultaniously.

If you still don't understand this then I'm afaid you never will.

What is the genetic material of viruses. do some research and you might start to understand

Originally posted by dj2becker
You still don't get it. Sigh.. If only you were a biology teacher....

Math looks at DNA. DNA is not the result of an accident. The mathematical possibilities that all this intertwining of codes and processors could come together by accident—is totally impossible. That is what the experts tell us.

For example, we are told that the information conten ...[text shortened]... mpossibilities!

See: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/08dna02.htm#DNA%20Molecule

Pretend science again. FFS

Originally posted by frogstomp
Lmao

Ten billion years is 1018 seconds. The earth weighs 1026 ounces. The entire universe has a diameter of only 1028 inches. There are 1080 elementary (subatomic) particles in the universe.


you ought to read stuff before you post it.

Ten billion years is 10^18 seconds. The earth weighs 10^26 ounces. The entire universe has a diameter of only 10^28 inches. There are 10^80 elementary (subatomic) particles in the universe.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Complex strands of DNA were not the starting point. I've given you a clue about what you need to research. Go to it

So what? You still need millions of transitional fossils, and you don't even have one.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Ten billion years is 10^18 seconds. The earth weighs 10^26 ounces. The entire universe has a diameter of only 10^28 inches. There are 10^80 elementary (subatomic) particles in the universe.

good you corrected that.. now correct the errors in your premise and I might respond

Originally posted by frogstomp
good you corrected that.. now correct the errors in your premise and I might respond

What errors would those be?
Kelly

Originally posted by dj2becker
So what? You still need millions of transitional fossils, and you don't even have one.

So what? Go and read so what. If you can't learn some detail on the topic then you'll always be ouit of your depth. Fossils...there are fossils a plenty that show transitional forms. You seem to want a single fossil that represents a transition from A to B: the reality is one of slow progressive change over millions of years with fossils in plentiful supply

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
So what? Go and read so what. If you can't learn some detail on the topic then you'll always be ouit of your depth. Fossils...there are fossils a plenty that show transitional forms. You seem to want a single fossil that represents a transition from A to B: the reality is one of slow progressive change over millions of years with fossils in plentiful supply

There are fossils that is all we know. How we connect the dots calling
something a transitional form, or saying that one creature is not a
transitional fossil is a matter of ... what are the words that fit that?
Educated guess maybe, professional opinion since no one knows for
sure.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
There are fossils that is all we know. How we connect the dots calling
something a transitional form, or saying that one creature is not a
transitional fossil is a matter of ... what are the words that fit that?
Educated [b]guess maybe, professional opinion since no one knows for
sure.
Kelly[/b]

Try the words...in depth research, accumulated knowlege, result of patient observation by a large number of independant researchers, deductions made on the basis of evidence.

If you want to belittle that kind of stuff be very careful the next time you visit a doctor. They will diagnose and treat you on the basis of in depth research, accumulated knowlege, result of patient observation by a large number of independant researchers, deductions made on the basis of evidence.

On the other hand, they may be making an educated guess; either way, its more credible than a bunch of rednecks inventing an explaination on idealogical grounds

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Try the words...in depth research, accumulated knowlege, result of patient observation by a large number of independant researchers, deductions made on the basis of evidence.

If you want to belittle that kind of stuff be very carefu ...[text shortened]... bunch of rednecks inventing an explaination on idealogical grounds

We were talking about fossils, if you want to change gears and shift into
the medical fields okay; just know you are changing the subject. Fossils
can be observed patiently, impatiently, by multitudes of people over
time with nothing else to do, or one guy sitting in his boxer shorts
scratching himself while simultaneously watching the Cubs lose a
baseball game; the only factual thing that is ever going to be gleaned
from those observations is that we are looking fossils, what those
fossils represent is a man made deduction. Which as we know man’s
deductions are not always right on the money as far as being actuate
all the time. They can get it right, but like I said calling something
transitional or not transitional does not mean it is factually true, it
only means that it is believed to be.
Kelly

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
So what? Go and read so what. If you can't learn some detail on the topic then you'll always be ouit of your depth. Fossils...there are fossils a plenty that show transitional forms. You seem to want a single fossil that represents a ...[text shortened]... ive change over millions of years with fossils in plentiful supply

Plenty? Okay give us one fossil that can be credibly proven to be in the process of changing from one specie to the other.

Originally posted by KellyJay
We were talking about fossils, if you want to change gears and shift into
the medical fields okay; just know you are changing the subject. Fossils
can be observed patiently, impatiently, by multitudes of people over
time with nothing else to do, or one guy sitting in his boxer shorts
scratching himself while simultaneously watching the Cubs lose a
base ...[text shortened]... nsitional does not mean it is factually true, it
only means that it is believed to be.
Kelly

Your talking about expertise. The body of knowlege that comprises geology and biology is comparable to that of medicine. If you want to belittle the scientific method in order to score cheap points then thats up to you.

However, if I want to consult a medical expert I visit a qualified doctor. If I want to learm about the history of the earth I talk to a geologist, if I want to learn about the history of life on earth I talk to a biologist. I do not consult with a christian idealogue or read an oral history of a nomadic tribe recorded by scribes who spoke different languages and made their record five thousand years later.

All expertise is man made deduction and it gives us the power to heal the sick, fly to the moon and slaughter each other at the press of a trigger.

So who do you want to believe? Experts who have built on centuries of study or bigotted idealogues who take their inspiration from the foundation legends of a Neolithc / Bronze age tribe?