Reminder to all atheists who claim to love science, but really it's about hating God

[Mr Beer]

Well when we look at software code the LAST thing you want in a functional software code is a series of random changes to those zeros & ones. If that happens, you will DEGRADE THE INFORMATION IN THAT CODE, LONG BEFORE YOU WILL EVER GENERATE A SOFTWARE PROGRAM OR OPERATING SYSTEM. Richard Dawkins & many, many others have acknowledged that what we have in DNA code is akin to machine or as Leroy Hood puts it..DIGITAL CODE.

Let me stop you here. You are making an analogy about software in order to illustrate a point about the process of evolution due to random mutations in DNA.

However, your original claim was that there is insufficient time since the start of the universe for life to arise naturally. The process of evolution is not involved in abiogenesis. By definition, evolution requires life.

Can we please return to your claim and the problem and meaning of combinatorial inflation in this context?

[Paul Kreul]

Morningstar = Lucifer AND Jesus Christ the Jewish Savior.

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star” (Revelation 22:16).




Christianity is a Massive Jew LARP just like Islam.

Lol @ goyim always hoping for a Jewish Savior.

First it was Jew Jesus Christ, then it was Jew Hitler.

Bunch of Jews/Jesuits wrote History and some retarded book and here we are.

There is only one Truth: there is a Creator. You don't need some manmade LARP to tell you how to think within a specific narrative. The End.

Satan comes AS an angel of light..not the morning star though..

2Cor 11:14-And no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Jesus Christ is not an angel, nor has ever, will ever be an angel. He is in charge of the Angels

[Paul Kreul]

Let me stop you here. You are making an analogy about software in order to illustrate a point about the process of evolution due to random mutations in DNA.

However your original claim was that there is insufficient since the start of the universe life to arise naturally. The process of evolution is not involved in abiogenesis.

Can we please return to your claim and the problem and meaning of combinatorial inflation in this context?

Abogenises is a process that is necessary though for evolution to be true. how rare or common are the functional sequences that would make a new protein/a new gene capable of making a new protein, how rare are the functional ones in comparison to the non-functional ones?.. For a relatively short protein about 150 amino acids long, it is determined that the ratio of functional to non-functional sequence was 1 over 10 to the 77th POWER. Lettuce put that in context, there are only 10 to the 65th atoms in the MILKY WAY GALAXY. What that means is that a random search for a NEW FUNCTIONAL SEQUENCE is going to be looking for one marked atom among 1 trillion galaxies of the size of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Even 13 BILLION years of life history is not enough time to solve a search problem of that magnitude... not even close. There are only 10 to the 40th organisms in the history of the planet, there are not enough replication events to search a space 10to the 77th compass. The hypothesis that the mechanism will produce an advantageous sequence is undoubtedly going to be false rather than true.

[Mr Beer]

Abogenises is a process that is necessary though for evolution to be true.

That's absolutely not the case. Let's pretend that God exists and is infinitely powerful, then He can't create life with the ability to replicate and evolve? Nonsense.

how rare or common are the functional sequences that would make a new protein/a new gene capable of making a new protein, how rare are the functional ones in comparison to the non-functional ones?.. For a relatively short protein about 150 amino acids long, it is determined that the ratio of functional to non-functional sequence was 1 over 10 to the 77th POWER.

What is the simplest possible form of life? By which I mean, what are you claiming is the minimum possible randomly formed gene.

[Paul Kreul]

That's absolutely not the case. Let's pretend that God exists and is infinitely powerful, then He can't create life with the ability to replicate and evolve? Nonsense.



What is the simplest possible form of life?

There is no “simple” form of life.

Genomes of animals were created by a genius. Here is part of the mouse genome on chromosome number 2, maybe someone can explain the function of this sequence of nucleotide bases...
gcagtggaca caggaatacg cagtggacac aggaatatgc agtggagaca ggaatacgca gtggacacag gaatacgcag tggacacagg aatacgcagt ggacacagga atacgcagtg gagacaggaa tatgcagtgg agacaggaat acgcagtgga cacaggaata cgcagtggac acaggaatac gcagtggaga ctggaatatg cagtggagac aggaacacgc agtggagaca ggaatatgca gtggagacag gaatacgcag tggagacagg aatacgcagt ggacacagga atacgcagtg gagacaggaa tacgcagtgg agacaggaac acgcagtgga gacaggaaca cgcagtggag acaggaatac gctgtggaga caggaataca ctgggtcggt ttggacgttg gtgctgggga ttgaagcaag ccttgaacgc gaccagacag tgctgtaact gaactgcttc ttccctgggg cagtgtttct ttcagttccg aggttctgct cacctggttt ctaatttatg cagataaatc tctgggtcaa gcataagtgt gcctacaact ttagcccttg gaagggaaag gcaggggatt gggagtttaa ccccaacctg cactgcgcag tgagactcta tctcaaaata ataatattgc agttggtaat cgggtctgtg aatccaaaat agtcctgaaa tatcatgttt tatcagtctc ttttataaaa acctaacaat attaccaaaa agccattgga ctgtctggag tactggagtt gggagcatta gaaaatgagg aaacagacag tggctctctg ctgctgcctg tctgaaggtg tagaaggtcc tccattggta gaggtttcaa gcagaaggca gcagtattgc cattcatctc tctgtctttc tccttcacag gagtatttct tgcaagcaga gttgacaagt aacgttttga aaacaggagt ggtccactgc tgtgtggggc agtgcaacaa caccatccct gtggacacca tccttaccat gaagaaactg cctatcactt atgtacgttc actgtgggag ttaagtcact caagcacctt ttcttgcttg tgcgttatgt gtctgtctag gttctggatg agggaggtaa tggagtcgtt tctataatgc ttccttcccc aagagttttc tatggaagca tggcagatgt gagttctgcc tttttgtcag agatggaacc aatgatctaa agtgagttgg gttggatgac tgctatttcc tgggtgtgct aaagacttcc agcctgggag gttgagctgt gctgagagac ctcagagggg agctgtttgc ctggaggacc tggttcaatc tttctttgtt ctttatctct ttcttattct ctggtgctag aaactgagca tgctagttgt gtactccagc gctcagcagt ccctagttct ttatctcctg atgggatgat tgtgttagtc ctctaaagga ctgggatgga gttgagtcta gatcagtgat cagtgggtgt gcacagccac aatgaattag catgttagca gatgtgacag taattcggcg ctttttggtg aaaaattttt atccttagat tgtcccttac tctttttctt atccatcctt gtagagcaac aggaaggaaa acaagggtgg ctacctctgc cactcatgtg cagagcagcg catcgggcct ttggcattcc tgactgcctc

This is only a small part of the 2,700,000,000 nucleotide bases that can create a mouse. If anyone believes that this is a result of random chance then they are mentally retarded.

[Mr Beer]

There is no “simple” form of life.

Genomes of animals were created by a genius. Here is part of the mouse genome

You are making a number of statements concerning extant DNA. However what we are discussing is the smallest minimum molecule capable of self-replication i.e. what's required for life.

You stated that it is rooted in mathematics to be impossible to arise naturally. Therefore you should be able to define the size of that molecule. Extant DNA is irrelevant to this discussion.

[BlackJack619]

Unfortunately, that is all you've got. Instead of accepting the obvious that it is a fairy tale, you are choosing to try and describe it in a more "powerful" or "mystical" way in order to try and validate it again, since your very description bolded above is precisely what it is. It is "the literal word of god"...if that comes across as a fairy tale to you, it is most likely because that is what it is.

How exactly do you know what I have?

[BigElephant]

I think it's plausible for their to be a creator. However it's a pretty big jump from creator to whatever Christianity/Judaism/Islam is.

[BlackJack619]

I think it's plausible for their to be a creator. However it's a pretty big jump from creator to whatever Christianity/Judaism/Islam is.

I honestly think Alcoholics Anonymous does a better job at laying out the path than these religons.

[Paul Kreul]

You are making a number of statements concerning extant DNA. However what we are discussing is the smallest minimum molecule capable of self-replication i.e. what's required for life.

You stated that it is rooted in mathematics to be impossible to arise naturally. Therefore you should be able to define the size of that molecule. Extant DNA is irrelevant to this discussion.

For your model (evolution on that scale) to work data would HAVE to make decisions, that's where your fault lies. Orgin of information.. it ALWAYS arises from an intelligent source. It does matter if we are speaking of a gyro-glyphic inscription, a paragraph in a book, or information embedded in a radio signal. Whenever you find information, especially in a digital or alphabetical form, when you trace it back to its source, you ALWAYS come to an intelligent source. Darwin presupposed the first living cell..that’s the problem...it would never happen, I tried explaining it to you, but I don’t think you are grasping it. Mutations over time do not work..they never have

We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote:

" Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small,each in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms for more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world ".

[Mr Beer]

For your model (evolution on that scale) to work data would HAVE to make decisions, that's where your fault lies. Orgin of information.. it ALWAYS arises from an intelligent source. It does matter if we are speaking of a gyro-glyphic inscription, a paragraph in a book, or information embedded in a radio signal. Whenever you find information, especially in a digital or alphabetical form, when you trace it back to its source, you ALWAYS come to an intelligent source. Darwin presupposed the first living cell..that’s the problem...it would never happen, I tried explaining it to you, but I don’t think you are grasping it. Mutations over time do not work..they never have

We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote:

" Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small,each in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms for more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world ".

You're basically changing the subject back to evolution; making irrelevant claims about how "information needs intelligence" which I don't agree with but w/e; and talking more about what life currently looks like.

Let's go back to your original claim, that life arising naturally is mathematically impossible. Can you please define the simplest possible form of life? Since you need to know what that is, in order to determine that it's can't occur.

EDIT

If it helps, I can stipulate that current lifeforms such as mice or even mouse cells are INSANELY complex and could not possibly spring into existence by random chance (at least in a non-infinite universe or without much greater time periods than 13 billion years).

[Paul Kreul]

You're basically changing the subject back to evolution; making irrelevant claims about how "information needs intelligence" which I don't agree with but w/e; and talking more about what life currently looks like.

Let's go back to your original claim, that life arising naturally is mathematically impossible. Can you please define the simplest possible form of life? Since you need to know what that is, in order to determine that it's can't occur.

EDIT

If it helps, I can stipulate that current lifeforms such as mice or even mouse cells are INSANELY complex and could not possibly spring into existence by random chance (at least in a non-infinite universe or without much greater time periods than 13 billion years).

What we observe today? That’s the point. The problem is that there is a major discontinuity between chemical processes that we observe & what we see an actual living organisms. There is a complexity gap that is absolutely extraordinary. We have tiny miniature machines, we have DNA with digital code in it, & a complex living proceeding system that even the simplest living cell on earth. DNA is absolutely essential for life..a simple Google search will answer this for you..

“All living things have DNA within their cells. ... However, DNA does more than specify the structure and function of living things — it also serves as the primary unit of heredity in organisms of all types. In other words, whenever organisms reproduce, a portion of their DNA is passed along to their offspring.”

Nature can create fascinating patterns – snowflakes, sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites.  Tornadoes and turbulence and cloud formations.
But non-living things cannot create language. They *cannot* create codes.  Rocks cannot think and they cannot talk.  And they cannot create information.
It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose accidentally from the “primordial soup,” the early ocean which produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells.

But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to answer the question, ‘Where did the information come from?’
DNA is not merely a molecule.  Nor is it simply a “pattern.” Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way that English and Chinese and HTML are languages.
DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar to words, sentences and paragraphs.  With very precise instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them. It is formally and scientifically a code. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

[EdwardTheGreat]

How exactly do you know what I have?

Because any notion or idea of god stems from the bible. Whatever you've got is an off-shoot from that book you have described as a potential fairy tale.

[BlackJack619]

Because any notion or idea of god stems from the bible. Whatever you've got is an off-shoot from that book you have described as a potential fairy tale.

Do you really think the bible is the only spiritual guide to God?


Someone on this thread recommend I check out the kybalion which helped expanded my understanding of God, if you havent read it I would recommend it, it talks about the 7 hermetic principles.

[Mr Beer]

What we observe today? That’s the point. The problem is that there is a major discontinuity between chemical processes that we observe & what we see an actual living organisms. There is a complexity gap that is absolutely extraordinary. We have tiny miniature machines, we have DNA with digital code in it, & a complex living proceeding system that even the simplest living cell on earth. DNA is absolutely essential for life..a simple Google search will answer this for you.

Well life on Earth has had at least 3.5 billion years to evolve, so why should the very simplest life resemble what we have now? Did the Wright brothers build an F-22 Raptor or an A380 Airbus, or something vastly more primitive? In the complete absence of any other information about heavier than air flight, we might examine either of those planes in order to inform ourselves about the very earliest beginnings of the technology, but we wouldn't expect it to look the same.

I've asked this a few different ways now and am not getting an answer from you, what is the simplest possible form of life? You made the claim that it cannot raise naturally, because of mathematics, but if you can't define your terms, you can't make a claim. Are you saying that it's a mouse cell, or DNA like we see today, or a bacteria? What is your definition?

[Paul Kreul]

Well life on Earth has had at least 3.5 billion years to evolve, so why should the very simplest life resemble what we have now? Did the Wright brothers build an F-22 Raptor or an A380 Airbus, or something vastly more primitive? In the complete absence of any other information about heavier than air flight, we might examine either of those planes in order to inform ourselves about the very earliest beginnings of the technology, but we wouldn't expect it to look the same.

I've asked this a few different ways now and am not getting an answer from you, what is the simplest possible form of life? You made the claim that it cannot raise naturally, because of mathematics, but if you can't define your terms, you can't make a claim. Are you saying that it's a mouse cell, or DNA like we see today, or a bacteria? What is your definition?

Again, there is no simple form of life, & life did not evolve. I tried explaining it to you in a way that you would understand like you asked, but then you quickly jumped to..well you can’t compare to a computer code..which is completely false.

Again, for your model to work, data would have to make decisions...if you are claiming that there is no “decision maker” then your only option is random mutations over time..this does not work. Again..the LAST thing you want in a functional software code is a series of random changes to those zeros & ones. If that happens, you will DEGRADE THE INFORMATION IN THAT CODE, LONG BEFORE YOU WILL EVER GENERATE A SOFTWARE PROGRAM OR OPERATING SYSTEM. To build ANYTHING in Biology you HAVE to have CODE. You have to have information. If you start randomly changing things, your overwhelmingly more likely to find a gibberish sequence than a functional one. As you try to quantify that, how much more likely, the quantitative odds are prohibitive.

[Mr Beer]

Again, there is no simple form of life

You are evading the question. I'm going to go ahead and assume that you will admit that there are comparatively simpler and more complex forms of life, so what is the simplest possible form of life? I will stipulate that you consider this to be "complex" but on a hypothetical scale of 1 to 10, what does 1 look like?

[Paul Kreul]

You are evading the question. I'm going to go ahead and assume that you will admit that there are comparatively simpler and more complex forms of life, so what is the simplest possible form of life? I will stipulate that you consider this to be "complex" but on a hypothetical scale of 1 to 10, what does 1 look like?

Designed

[Mr Beer]

Designed

OK, conclusion time.

Your initial claim was that life could not have arisen naturally because the complexity required for life to self-assemble is not possible in the timeframe of the known universe.

However you have been unable to define the minimum level of complexity required, and therefore cannot back up your claim that this is mathematically proven. When a required variable is unknown, the equation cannot be solved.

[Tha big kahoona]

Guilty. If your god exists, and he doesn't, he's a dick

[Paul Kreul]

OK, conclusion time.

Your initial claim was that life could not have arisen naturally because the complexity required for life to self-assemble is not possible in the timeframe of the known universe.

However you have been unable to define the minimum level of complexity required, and therefore cannot back up your claim that this is mathematically proven. When a required variable is unknown, the equation cannot be solved.

Yes conclusion time indeed
Clearly you do not understand the essential sequences of life formation. I’m going to try & explain it to you one more time. The DNA molecule stores information as a four-character digital code, strings of precisely sequenced chemicals inside the DNA helix:the information for building the proteins that cells need to survive. Unless the chemical letters in the DNA text are sequenced properly, a protein molecule will not form..

No Proteins—-> No cells—-> No Living Organisms

To build form(s) of life, the Evolutionary process needs to form information..information that is advantageous..thesis does not work.
As I’ve explained it is mathematically impossible. For every DNA sequence that generates a relatively short functional protein there are 10 to the 77th power nonfunctional sequences. There are only 10 to the 65th Power Atoms in our galaxy. Finding a new DNA sequence capable of building a functional protein is like searching blindly (remember because according to the evolution theory it is unguided) for a single marked atom among a trillion Milky Way galaxies. It is completely implausible.

[Paul Kreul]

Guilty. If your god exists, and he doesn't, he's a dick

Why would you say that?

[Mr Beer]

Yes conclusion time indeed
Clearly you do not understand the essential sequences of life formation. I’m going to try & explain it to you one more time. The DNA molecule stores information as a four-character digital code, strings of precisely sequenced chemicals inside the DNA helix:the information for building the proteins that cells need to survive. Unless the chemical letters in the DNA text are sequenced properly, a protein molecule will not form..

No Proteins—-> No cells—-> No Living Organisms

To build form(s) of life, the Evolutionary process needs to form information..information that is advantageous..thesis does not work.
As I’ve explained it is mathematically impossible. For every DNA sequence that generates a relatively short functional protein there are 10 to the 77th power nonfunctional sequences. There are only 10 to the 65th Power Atoms in our galaxy. Finding a new DNA sequence capable of building a functional protein is like searching blindly (remember because according to the evolution theory it is unguided) for a single marked atom among a trillion Milky Way galaxies. It is completely implausible.

But current hypotheses do not favour spontaneous creation of DNA as a starting point for life, so this analysis is irrelevant.

[Paul Kreul]

But current hypotheses do not favour spontaneous creation of DNA as a starting point for life, so this analysis is irrelevant.

Spontaneous what? What’s the next word? Just lmao

Wtf are you even talking about? Who said anything about spontaneous creation?
Do you even understand that advantageous change over time does not work? Are you really this stupid?
Srs question..

[Godfrd824]

lol, all you did was make me laugh.

Thanks.

Would you like for me to pray for you. I mean, what's the harm if you don't think God exists?

You do whatever makes you feel good. I will pray for your salvation.

[Mr Beer]

Spontaneous what? What’s the next word? Just lmao

Wtf are you even talking about? Who said anything about spontaneous creation?
Do you even understand that advantageous change over time does not work? Are you really this stupid?
Srs question..

Not sure what triggered you? You're saying that

a) DNA is too complex to arise naturally and also
b) that DNA is necessary for life.

Logically therefore, you are stating that DNA can't arise spontaneously in order to support your assertion that life cannot arise naturally.

As a rebuttal, I am stating that current hypothesis concerning the origin of life do not state that DNA arose naturally, therefore the complexity of DNA is irrelevant.

What is it about this that you don't understand?

[Paul Kreul]

Not sure what triggered you? You're saying that

a) DNA is too complex to arise naturally and also
b) that DNA is necessary for life.

Logically therefore, you are stating that DNA can't arise spontaneously in order to support your assertion that life cannot arise naturally.

As a rebuttal, I am stating that current hypothesis concerning the origin of life do not state that DNA arose naturally, therefore the complexity of DNA is irrelevant.

What is it about this that you don't understand?

So how exactly do you think DNA arose?
We know it was not spontaneous creation..in an evolutionary sense apart from a Creator
We know that advantageous mutations over time do not work.

I am not aware of a third premise

“In all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information. . . . All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.”
Lee Spetner, Not By Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Judaica Press, 1997), 131, 138.

No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”
Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms 1977, p. 88

They rearrange existing information but do not increase genetic complexity

As an athiest (though not a biochemist) you might be able to teach me something — who wrote the code? Every known lifeform has an extensive DNA code instructing how the lifeform's morphology and various activities take place. The only exceptions are a few viruses that contain RNA rather than DNA, but their RNA is immediately transcribed into DNA when they infect a host cell. Therefore, all known lifeforms function on the code contained on DNA. Who wrote the codes? Perhaps, you think the codes do not have an author.

[Mr Beer]

So how exactly do you think DNA arose?
We know it was not spontaneous creation..in an evolutionary sense apart from a Creator
We know that advantageous mutations over time do not work.

I am not aware of a third premise

“In all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information. . . . All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.”
Lee Spetner, Not By Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Judaica Press, 1997), 131, 138.

No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”
Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms 1977, p. 88

They rearrange existing information but do not increase genetic complexity

As an athiest (though not a biochemist) you might be able to teach me something — who wrote the code? Every known lifeform has an extensive DNA code instructing how the lifeform's morphology and various activities take place. The only exceptions are a few viruses that contain RNA rather than DNA, but their RNA is immediately transcribed into DNA when they infect a host cell. Therefore, all known lifeforms function on the code contained on DNA. Who wrote the codes? Perhaps, you think the codes do not have an author.

At least 75% of what you wrote pertains to evolution, as opposed to abiogenesis. These are separate topics. I'm going to pass on getting into evolution at this point.

Let's go back to your initial claim that life can't have arisen naturally, because it's mathematically impossible:

You cannot have a mover without intent. I’ve said it before, 13 billion odd years is nowhere near enough time to randomly stumble upon the information required to build life. There is a finite number of life forms(generation), because time itself is finite in relation to life on the planet. It's not possible.

The problem is a mathematical problem, and it is a profound one at that. It is called the problem of combinatorial inflation.

The thing you need to start life is a self-replicating molecule. Not DNA, not a mouse cell, not any of the things you keep talking about. You claim that it can't mathematically exist, because it's too complex to self-assemble. But you can't define it, or it's required level of complexity, so you can't say that it's mathematically impossible.

The other part of your argument are mere assertions, such as "information requires intelligence" and "codes need authors". However this is not mathematics, this is just your point of view. It holds no weight.

So you have been unable to demonstrate your claim that naturally arisen life is mathematically impossible.

[Paul Kreul]

At least 75% of what you wrote pertains to evolution, as opposed to abiogenesis. These are separate topics. I'm going to pass on getting into evolution at this point.

Let's go back to your initial claim that life can't have arisen naturally, because it's mathematically impossible:





The thing you need to start life is a self-replicating molecule. Not DNA, not a mouse cell, not any of the things you keep talking about. You claim that it can't mathematically exist, because it's too complex to self-assemble. But you can't define it, or it's required level of complexity, so you can't say that it's mathematically impossible.

The other part of your argument are mere assertions, such as "information requires intelligence" and "codes need authors". However this is not mathematics, this is just your point of view. It holds no weight.

So you have been unable to demonstrate your claim that naturally arisen life is mathematically impossible.

Once again you clearly do not understand the process of life formation. Again, DNA is in all forms of life. Your statement that “The thing you need to start life is a self-replicating molecule. Not DNA..” is completely false.

Again..Google is your friend..

“All living things have DNA within their cells. ... However, DNA does more than specify the structure and function of living things — it also serves as the primary unit of heredity in organisms of all types. In other words, whenever organisms reproduce, a portion of their DNA is passed along to their offspring.”

This might also help you..https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-ool061819.php

And yes, it is mathematically impossible, as I’ve stated numerous times now, there are only 10 to the 40th organisms in the history of the planet, there are not enough replication events to search a space 10to the 77th compass..you cannot randomly start making changes & end up with an advantageous sequence..it does not work.

Give just one example of it ever happening..I’ll wait.

Information requires intelligence is not an assertion, it is a fact. It’s very simple.  Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind.  A mind that agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences.  A mind that expresses both desire and intent.
Whether I use the simplest possible explanation, such as the one I’m giving you here, or if we analyze language with advanced mathematics and engineering communication theory, we can say this with total confidence:
“Messages, languages and coded information never, ever come from anything else besides a mind.  No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind.”

Keep trying, I’m sure one day you’ll post something intelligent

[Mr Beer]

Once again you clearly do not understand the process of life formation. Again, DNA is in all forms of life. Your statement that “The thing you need to start life is a self-replicating molecule. Not DNA..” is completely false.

Absolutely false. For example, here is an hypothesis which does not require DNA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

And yes, it is mathematically impossible, as I’ve stated numerous times now, there are only 10 to the 40th organisms in the history of the planet, there are not enough replication events to search a space 10to the 77th compass..you cannot randomly start making changes & end up with an advantageous sequence..it does not work.

You have failed to define the odds, because you have failed to define the requirements. I can say the space is 10 to the 3rd because that's what's needed, now what? Additionally it's silly to say that the number of organisms defines attempts (for want of a better word) to search the space. That's not even slightly true - how are living things searching the space for naturally arisen life? They're already alive.

Information requires intelligence is not an assertion, it is a fact. It’s very simple.  Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind.  A mind that agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences.  A mind that expresses both desire and intent.
Whether I use the simplest possible explanation, such as the one I’m giving you here, or if we analyze language with advanced mathematics and engineering communication theory, we can say this with total confidence:
“Messages, languages and coded information never, ever come from anything else besides a mind.  No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind.”

This is just the watchmaker argument "oh but it looks designed so it must be". Prove it.

Keep trying, I’m sure one day you’ll post something intelligent

A bit childish, don't you think? Surely a well adjusted adult can prove his point without resorting to insults.