I'm going to skip the multiple appeals to authority, straw men, and sexual insults that compose 95% of your post, and merely note that your increasing use of logical fallacies is a sign that you are in an area that you don't understand.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lune
They peeked inside a molecule and observed a helical structure. That's it. It told them nothing about how it got that way, and observing other molecular shapes told them nothing about DNA helices other than not all molecules are helix shaped.
|
I think perhaps I was too flippant and you read me too literally. The point is that a scientist who works with DNA has a high degree of control over the environment. They can shoot x-rays at it, add chemicals, or whatever else, and then measure the reaction and compare it with other chemicals going through the same process.
Think about it this way: if it was possible to create in a lab 100 copies of the Earth, half of which with more CO2 and half without and the ones with CO2 had higher temperatures, there would be no global warming debate. And before you say there is no debate, why are you are unable to do more than regurgitate the opinion of climate scientists? If you could do this experiment, a child of 10 could understand.
Instead, we have to proceed deductively. We know how some of the pieces of the puzzle work, and we can make some guesses about how they fit together, but it's not nearly as convincing, because as I stated earlier the atmosphere is a complex system and a chaotic one as well.