Biological organisms are [i]primarily[/i] Software Defined Lifeforms. - Yes or No?

You have no clue what you're talking about. You lack the kind of in-depth scientific literacy that would allow you to understand what you read and place it within context. Your misplaced certainty about these matters just proves your shallowness.

Said in your language: Your software just ain't good enough for it to understand these things.

DVD's and Flash Drives are hardware. And in the case of DNA, the hardware is completely relevant. Not only is it relevant, it is absolutely integral to the growth of the information which results. The more we get into this the worse your argument gets.

The prior two posts are merely repetitions of 'you're wrong, I’m right.' and present no arguments, but I thank you both and everyone else who posted for doing so.

You're most welcome.

Yes. Glad we could help.

The degree to which our input was listened to, cared for, understood and appreciated really warmed my heart.

I thought detected a tiny bit of resistance to our information. Very tiny though, almost like some things were misunderstood, some things completely ignored and others running into a complete wall of denial. Nah, must have been my imagination.

That may be due to poor transmission of the signal through parallel universes... From what I gathered, LF lives in an alternative spacetime where computers keep on computing for a few days after you remove their software, before they break down progressively as their harware needs the software to maintain its structure. A world where women can give birth to T. rex babies, too. No wonder he doesn't understand everything we say.

One of your most counter-intuitive statements. Think about this a minute:

Because there are so many pathways to it, we may never find it!

I suppose if there was only one, that would increases our chances? No wonder you'd never follow the math argument with logic like that.

I'd be happy with any old random pathway you can find farmer. Got One?

I get why you guys reject my comparison, I'm an egotistical, passive-aggressive, asshole, know-it-all, but I don't see how you so breezily dismiss the same opinion from some of the most immanent scientists in the field. It seems like the same science denial you are always accusing others of.

think about what you said a wee bit more , then explode with self-loathing.

K?

One of the basic tenets of science is the concept of MULTIPLE HYPOTHESES??
If you were a chemist or field based scientist, youd quickly understand. Sometimes we get so much evidence tht does NOT lead us down a single path. You remember when you brought up HGT? The works of Margulis and Woese were big components of multiple hypotheses.

Operative word was MAY. Being impatient in science is just plain adolescent. I grew up in pre continentql drift dogma and began my college days in the spirit of the "New Global Tectonics". That was multiple hypotheses writ huuuge. Every bit of data (like magnetic stripes on seabeds tht were detected by WWII mine sweepers) individually, had decent explanations. IT WAS WHEN ALL THE DATA WAS ENTERED TOGETHER that Global Tectonics began to make sense.

Thats why many o us insist tht the origin of life v the development of life on earth are two totally different areas of inquiry with totally diferent mens of investigation.

Creation/ID ism links everything because theres not much real science involved there, so the correspondents make these unrealistic claims out of some other source

I Couldn't get past the 'many possible pathways that life could have appeared' when we don't even have one that goes anywhere in the lab.

I wasn't trying to go into either origin or evolution in this thread. It seems to me you would have to have a common understanding of what it is we are looking at now to have any hope of reaching meaningful conclusions about its origin.

Nice of you to conscript her for your little horror show.

Yeah, that was gross. But Leadfoot has since then agreed to incubate his baby T. rex in his own rectal cavity, so we're fine.