"Hint: You're an ignoramus." I've been pretty tolerant of your name-calling so far, but at some point you are going to have to clean up your act (or get banned).
And your repeatedly implying that I'm a liar doesn't count?
More and more, I'm becoming convinced that you're merely a common troll.
I stand by my statement -- if you can loftily declare that it's "nonsense" that DNA works by ordinary chemistry, and that it's (you allege) impossible to name the chemicals that cause it to work, then yes, you are indeed an ignoramus, because it does, and the compounds by which it works are taught in first-year genetics classes.
Moreover, your name-calling distracts from the subject at hand, and it also reduces your already-low credibility.
*laugh*
Whatever helps you sleep at night, troll.
"I stand by my statement -- if you can loftily declare that it's "nonsense" that DNA works by ordinary chemistry, and that it's (you allege) impossible to name the chemicals that cause it to work, then yes, you are indeed an ignoramus, because it does, and the compounds by which it works are taught in first-year genetics classes."
First, you have again mischaracterized my position. I did NOT claim that DNA fails to work by ordinary chemistry. All that I have done is to show that we haven't been able to prove how inanimate DNA matter becomes animated.
Adding the compounds to which you allude (above) to inanimate DNA will NOT yet animate DNA (unless, of course, those compounds are part of an already animated organism).
Contrary to your allusions, we in science do not yet know the trigger to animate DNA via any entirely inanimate chemical process.
Yet you claim that there is no breath of life, as if you had any valid way of knowing one way or the other.
Telling...