[aNYCguy]

Thanks for the simple comparison of complexity. I continue to await your mathematical demonstration which will back up your claims about relative probabilities of birds chirping symphonies and DNA existing. You do realize that "DNA is super complicated" is not a proof of your claim, correct?

Once again: State your assumptions. Show your work. Back up your claim.

[durasell]

You both missed the most important part...there's a tortoise at the exhibit!

[AnnoyedOne]

A scientific hypothesis needs no proof. That is what makes it a hypothesis. When it can be tested, predictions made, and the results repeated, it then qualifies as scientific theory. Once again, some 24 centuries or so seperated the hypothesis of the Atom, and the ability to test it in any way.

I have stated a hypothesis, and I feel quite comfortable in the assertion that DNA is so much greater complexity.. but if you do not think so.. feel free to endeavor in science pursuit and disprove my hypothesis. I do not have to PROVE a scientific hypothesis. ;)