JB wrote:

...
Vast differences John. Were not talking about bricks here. We're talking
about a skyscraper in Hong Kong and the hut is one of it's droppings. Vast
difference in design and complexity but both would be sufficient to be
viable in there own element. Mud huts are not strong or expensive but stay
much cooler without any kind of power or energy. The mud hut will not
evolve into a Hong Kong skyscraper no matter how long you watch.


Absolutely no difference in the context which the point is being made,
you are confusing basic building blocks with technology--apples and
oranges ...

Were talking about complex molecules that do specific jobs and drive complex
machinery. Think of a cell as a city with numerous factories to make it
self sufficient. DNA decides not only how the factories will be built but
what factories are needed and how they will all interact to make the cell
self-sufficient, and some of the factories will be build only as needed from
parts from other factories that are deemed surplus as they too can be
rebuild as necessary. All the Plans are in the DNA but how does the cell or
any part of it know when or what plans to consult and who or what redraws
the plans as necessary. Still the DNA is very specific in what capabilities
are available so that the fly cant grow a human foot or the frog won't grow
a hoof. The DNA is limited only to minor changes. Any more and things
needed to survive aren't there. Splice too much and the different parts
fight each other.


A toy serves a different purpose than a diesel truck. Those purposes
cannot be confused with what they are built from--a dung beetle is
constructed for a different purpose than a human ...

...

You argument contains more your agenda than rational debate in a quest
for answers... colleges are constructed just for such purposes--to
educate you in the differences ...

Regards,
JS
Half-a-Brain-McCain'n Insane; So Lawdy Mama, It Looks Like Obama!

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

...
Vast differences John. Were not talking about bricks here. We're
talking
about a skyscraper in Hong Kong and the hut is one of it's droppings.
Vast
difference in design and complexity but both would be sufficient to be
viable in there own element. Mud huts are not strong or expensive but
stay
much cooler without any kind of power or energy. The mud hut will not
evolve into a Hong Kong skyscraper no matter how long you watch.


Absolutely no difference in the context which the point is being made,
you are confusing basic building blocks with technology--apples and
oranges ...

I lost your context then. The only thing in common between the skyscraper
and mud hut is that they have a maker and some plan. Maybe some wood. If
you are talking Chemistry, then you are getting specific and I doubt they
use the same mud formula in the skyscraper anywhere but in the flower pots.
The only thing
in common with various different species are proteins, and they aren't
even life. I contend that the complexities involved are too astronomical to
be accidental because outside of minor adaptability that are wired for,
changes from one species to another couldn't happen one step at a time, it
would be just as probable if male and female of a species popped out ready
made. You cant make a semi out of a VW bug without recycling and
redesigning it from the ground up.

You argument contains more your agenda than rational debate in a quest
for answers... colleges are constructed just for such purposes--to
educate you in the differences ...

There is no place for rational debate on this subject (and many others) in
most colleges. It conflicts with the agenda to promote Globalism, Marxism
and
homosexuality, and especially the denial of God, national unity, or any
authority above the Global Socialist state. Karl Marx was a seminary
student when he stumbled onto Darwin's book. After reading it, he lost his
faith and went to formulate his own theories of life and revolution. Hitler
also read Darwin's book and made references to it in Mein Kamph and other
works to justify ridding the world of "inferior species" in order to promote
evolution. Darwin became an Atheist because he couldn't bear the thought of
his Father going to Hell for committing suicide and sought to promote
Atheism. Interesting to note, several of his children had birth defects.

I present this in the context that Darwin promoted:
1. That all life on the planet evolved from mud and through slow evolution,
2. All species evolved from a single celled organism that evolved
spontaneously from mixtures of "primordial ooze" and inevitably,
3. There is no god, no purpose in life but to be killed and eaten
by another organism.

In fact, there is no more proof of those ideas, than of the idea that a
great
number of species spontaneously emerged over a short time and make
environmental changes within the limitations of the DNA and viability.

However, since there is no research money for God, the Darwin theory
persists because the alternative is unthinkable.

JB wrote:

...
I lost your context then. The only thing in common between the skyscraper
and mud hut is that they have a maker and some plan. Maybe some wood. If
you are talking Chemistry, then you are getting specific and I doubt they
use the same mud formula in the skyscraper anywhere but in the flower pots.
...

Iron is iron, whether in a pure form, alloys, rust or other ferric
compounds. Silicon is silicon, whether in a window pane, silicon oxide,
or some other compound of silicon. Calcium is calcium, whether in
limestone, cement, earth, or other calcium compounds, etc., etc. ...

Back when I was in college, someone did some computations of how the
body of Plato would have decayed and been dispersed throughout the world
in the thousands of years since his death. They arrived at the
conclusion that everyone on the planet would have at least 6 molecules
from Platos' body in their own bodies (mostly water molecules since that
is the major component of the human body) ... I cannot verify the
accuracy of those computations--however, you get the drift--I am part
Plato! grin

Regards,
JS