Boss
Take a Memo:
You fool...guess who does understand DNA? The scientists who discovered it and dedicated their lives to studying it, and who are now testing the hypothesis of abiogenesis by selection, exactly as I have described it. No, your contrived bullshit that "anyone who doesn't apply your magical bullshit and fallacies to this idea just doesnt understand it" is not worth shit. Get that weak shit out of here.What are the odds of DNA persisting and then existing, billions of years later? ? Apparently, 100%, in this universe, same as the odds that stars will form and die. Or, using Hoyle's fallacy (as you do all the time), it's virtually 0%. Clearly, it's a nonsensical question, as no answer is more correct or incorrect than any other. You wield a LOT of nonsense like this, Boss.
Apparently, you don't understand what DNA is or how it works. DNA is not this ubiquitous thing that just so happens to exist in living things. It is a complex 16-bit code defining every single aspect of the living organism it belongs to. Every living thing contains unique DNA... that's why it is so useful in crime scene investigations. All DNA is not the same. While it is unique to each organism, it also contains comparatively common markers allowing us to define species, genus, family, order, class, etc. We know the difference between the DNA of a monkey and that of a human. They have similarity because both are members of the same genetic family but they are never the same.
I've not argued ANY type of fallacy, I am merely interjecting philosophy of honesty here. You can't run around waving your science book at me and proclaim things fact that you haven't proven. Maybe you'll prove them one day, but that's not today, bucko!
This is just utter nonsense. "Selection" implies a choice was consciously made by something! If there is no physical living thing to consciously select, what does that leave? ...Seems to be abundantly clear to me that it wasn't something physical.
Abiogenesis is a theory without any valid scientific support. It currently has about 127 iterations, many of which conflict with each other radically. Scientists simply can't collectively agree on a set abiogenesis theory. So this becomes sort of like hurling mud at the wall and claiming you've figured it all out. Well you haven't figured it out! IF you had, this debate would be settled and it's obviously not.
There is not anything "magical" about the belief in a possibility we're dealing with something beyond physical nature. Or at least, our current understanding of physical nature. Dismissing a possibility simply because it interferes with your secular anti-God belief system is NOT an application of science. It is a reliance on your faith-based belief... or in this case, disbelief.
I'm not willing to go there with you, nor is most of the human race. The overwhelming majority of humans believe in some force greater than self. Always have, always will. To keep our minds open to the possibility that something outside our understanding of physical nature COULD BE responsible for things, is pragmatic thinking. It's certainly not something to be ridiculed and mocked they way you constantly do. I'm not the one proclaiming MY view as the empirical truth, but that seems to be YOUR position. I've only submitted it's a possibility and I stand by that.