15 PHD level scientists say evolution is a bunch of bullshit

everybody in the entire grit-eatin world KNOWS, that it takes precisely 20 minutes to cook up a mess a grits. We have that as court testimony from "Carbone v Mississippi"...

viz

DNA is the only molecule you know of that makes a copy of itself. You have zero knowledge that a much simpler chemical couldn't do it. I'm sure that if questioned, you'd be willing to accept all kinds of scientific speculation on various topics, and yet in this case, mysteriously you respond with absolute certainty that it can't ever happen. Interesting. Previously, you said that there was no explanation as to how today's species came to exist, which is nonsense (just ordinary mutation and natural selection) and that evolution shouldn't be called a theory, indicating that you don't understand the use of the word theory in science. You have also indicated a complete lack of understanding of the mechanism of evolution, since you think that it is caused by DNA, when, in fact, the theory states that it is caused by errors in replication combined with natural selection.

You have been asked again and again and again for your evidence that a God exists. Please answer the question for once.

Well can't argue with that

Yea, verily I am blessed among men, for boiling water doeth verily soak into a grit in my kitchen verily faster than any place on earth. Therefore, verily god.

DNA only replicates itself under special conditions. The chemical DNA will just sit there and crystallize without aliving cell around it.
Uner that condition, there are several other replicating mono, di, tetra, and hexadeoxynucleotides .

DNA does not replicate itself. It needs enzymes to do so, eg a transcriptase or another. These enzymes are too complicated to be synthetised without some DNA (or RNA) code. Chicken and egg.

Egg came first, laid by something that was almost a chicken, but not quite.

Ill wager that Thumbsy never even considered the differences between a ribosome an a ribozyme

I know, but it only moves the chicken and egg problem one step further away.

There is, as of today, no workable hypothesis for the emergence of life on this planet, because even the simplest organisms around are far too complex to originate from inanimated matter. If there was a world of living creatures based on something else than DNA/RNA/proteins before, we don't know what it was.

From what I gathered, RNA is more likely to have formed in space than on earth. This is of course highly speculative.

More surprising: the date for the emergence of life keeps being pushed back in time. It used to be set around 2 bl yr ago, but now there are finding proof of photosynthesis as far back as 3.5 bl years ago or more... That's only 1 bl years after earth is thought to have formed as a planet, ie amazingly early when one knows how complex photosynthesis is.

You could also say that I have zero knowledge that you have no arms or legs, and this would be true as well. Science is based around fact, theoretical science, is not science, but philosophy, that if and when proved, becomes science. As for evolution, this word has no clear meaning, I have said that evolution happens, as all species on the Earth are evolved. However evolution is not past tense, it is also present and future tense, which means that there should be whales giving birth to cows somewhere. DNA is the computer like code that enables both life and evolution, this is scientific fact until you or some evolution nerd who claims rats give birth to primates proves otherwise.

Now where is the Tylenol.

Or a McRib for some, for that matter.

You're completely wrong. Evolution has a precise meaning. It refers to gradual improvements in creatures in the same breeding pool caused by the combination of genetic accidents with natural selection. It doesn't mean that whales should be giving birth to cows somewhere. There is no reason why accumulation of beneficial accidents in whale reproduction should lead to cows.

There is no evidence that evolving species, can evolve into a new species. This would be needed if the meaning of evolution were precise, thus evolution is an imprecise theory. Evolution is also a function of DNA, that if not present, exist a mathematical model that can exclude the possibility of evolution in the first place. This is all proved by science, and excluded by believers in the religion of evolution.

Interestingly, you lack even a rudimentary understanding of the theory you are criticizing. Species do indeed evolve into other species for a reason which has been pointed out already in this thread. You really ought to try reading the posts in discussions in which you participate. Species distinctions are nothing more than arbitrarily applied milestones in the slow accumulation of improvement. People have just arbitrarily pointed to a place in human development and said that before this point it will be considered homo habilis and after this point it will be considered homo erectus. All of the species in the world are the branches of an upside down tree. Cat's don't evolve into dogs because they are on different branches. You cannot even state correctly the theory that you challenge.

There is no evidence in all of science (any branch) that any species has evolved into another. The discussions here will not alter this fact. You say that cats do not evolve into dogs because they are on different branches of the tree. The question then becomes how did the joint species on the tree turn into two or more different species. There is no evidence for this, just a dopey tree drawn by Darwin, who was just a glorified birdwatcher.

This is the real Darwinian scribble, and it is hardly evidence of science, it even begins with I think..........It does not begin with I know.

Forget that. Transcriptases are to translate DNA in RNA. These are the enzymes needed to replicate DNA:

Helicase
Class of motor proteins that move directionally along the DNA backbone, separating two nucleic acid strands (i.e., DNA, RNA, or RNA-DNA hybrid) using energy derived from ATP hydrolysis. Approximately 1% of our genes code for helicases. In humans, 95 different helicases are coded for in the genome (64 RNA helicases and 31 DNA helicases).


DNA ligase
Called for to repair breaks (damaged sections) in the DNA double helix by catalyzing the formation of a phosphodiester bond.


Primase
'Primes' replication by binding to the DNA 1-strand the corresponding RNA.

DNA polymerase
Finally “reads” the unzipped DNA to create two new strands that match the original one, by polymerizing the correct nucleotides one after the other. Usually works in pairs.



It's all explained here:


Oh man, i forgot the topoisomerase...

But if you do not have all of that, in a complete life form, there is no scientific information, that shows how replication can occur. Speculating that all of that and at least hundreds of thousands of lines of DNA code formed in a muddy pond, is certainly not scientific..

As you have been told again and again and again in this thread, creatures slowly accumulate small improvements and men arbitrarily designate some point on their development timeline as the separating line between between two species. Creatures which are too far apart to interbreed develop in different directions and eventually become different enough that people would call them different species.

Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare
September 25th, 2008
Are Transitional fossils are extremely rare?

Summary of problems with claim:

Fossils with transitional morphology are not rare. Fossils illustrating the gradual origin of humans, horses, rhinos, whales, seacows, mammals, birds, tetrapods, and various major Cambrian "phyla" have been discovered and are well-known to scientists. Explore Evolution's claims to the contrary are just a rehash of older creationist arguments on this point, relying on out-of-context quotes, confusion over terminology and classification, and ignoring inconvenient evidence.

"Though a possible whale-to-mammal transitional sequence has recently been unearthed, critics maintain that transitional sequences are rare, at best. For this reason, critics argue that Darwin's theory has failed an important test.
Explore Evolution, p. 27

Scientists have long thought that amphibians were a transitioinal form between aquatic and land-dwelling life forms. Why? Because amphibians can live in both the water and on land. Yet, the fossil record has revealed at least two problems with this idea... land-dwelling amphibians, themselves, appear suddenly in the fossil record.
Explore Evolution, p. 27

Darwin himself was well aware of the problems that the fossil record posed for his theory. … Where were the multitudes of transitional forms connecting different groups, as predicted (and expected) by his theory?
Explore Evolution, p. 30

Some critics say neo-Darwinism is not consistent with fossil data. Other critics say that punctuated equilibrium is consistent with fossil evidence, but lacks and adequate mechanism. Critics of both views argue that there are still far fewer transitional forms in the fossil record than we would expect, even if new forms of life did arise quickly.
Explore Evolution, p. 33
...

http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/transitional-fossils-are-not-rare

*Explore Evolution is a creationist group that tries to hide behind a veneer of credibility, but still concludes "Goddit."

Getting desperate?


SAYING THAT TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS ARE NOT RARE IS NOT THE SAME AS

SHOWING THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!