Actually, that's what the math shows. Why would you call that irrelevant?
Actually, that's what the math shows. Why would you call that irrelevant?
Why don't you read more than two lines at a time? I answered that one already:
But who cares? Nobody suggests that such a thing happens - its a strawman.
You are clearly not interested in dialogue or debate, facts or logical argument. You would rather blindly continue posting your half-truths and inanities in an attempt at willful ignorance. You are, in that sense, a perfect creationist. God help us all if you teach children.
"Because life did not spontaneously appear as a fully formed DNA-based cell, but rather arose through a process of selection and chemistry, Watson's math is irrelevant."
Are you claiming that Life first arose from an incompletely formed DNA-based cell?
Cute. Thank you for playing, please try again.
Still waiting for you to explain the relevance of your article to anything remotely resembling chemistry. As well as responses to this, this, and this, and this. Three threads, and you still just duck, dodge, and run away. I notice you've never returned to your computer virus, auto junkyard, and Occam's razor arguments. Is this another one you will conveniently ignore now that you've been proven wrong?