>>Define DNA structures. DNA is structured as a double helix. In order for a meaningful conversation, lets first understand what you mean by "simpler" and "more complex" "DNA structures".
>Not my job. Like I said there are far smarter folks than I who have done this.

In otherwords, you're just remebering what your Creationist friend told you instead of contemplating the arguments yourself?

>Here's one for starters:
>http://www.india-syndicate.com/sci/fff/23mar001.htm

This restates my presented fact that humans have considerably more genes than worms. It does not state that the "DNA Structures are more complex in worms" which is comlpetely unscientific and embarassing.

>You mean like there's order and life from flimsy evolutionary evidence? <g>

You can't prove that order exists and you can't define life. Thats where your problem begins.

>>How do you define a species. I have blue eyes, if you have grey eyes, are we of the same species? Don't throw around species like it means something, its something a human classification system which in no way makes definitive claims about the genetic makup of the individual of that species. Evolution is not about species, its about genes.
>Uh huh.. That looks like a rationalization.

Excuse me? If you think that evolution is not about genes and about species, you are not arguing at the same level that everyone else making valid arguments for or against evolution.

>Are you just playing dumb here or do you really struggle with the notion of what 'species' means?

Seriouslly, how can I have blue eyes and you have non-blue eyes and we still be in the same species. Put in skin color, hair color, left brain vrs. right brain, left handed vrs. right handed, introvert vrs. extrovert, double jointed vrs. not double jointed. There are even humans with tails. Well, are there are children of humans with tails, but are teh children human? The idea of and reliance on the word "Species" is outdated.

>>No its not. Genetics, not species, are the basis. It is much more complex than the model that you have of evolution in your head. I can guarantee this.
>So.. Where do the genes come from?

Genes come from molecules that have done far better at guaranteeing their survival than their competetiors.

>Better yet.. Where does life come from?

Define what life is. Then I'll tell you. To be honest, I don't believe that there is something objective called "life".

>Even better.. Where does self-awareness come from?

This too, you may want to provide a better definition of, and maybe a proof that it exists... but...

Ever made a model of a scenario to solve a problem? For example, if you had to throw a ball to a buddy, would you create a model, without any explicit thoughts, to define you, your buddy, and the ball, and predicting the best way to throw the ball? I think this happens all the time. Well, as you live, you start to create a model of the world, in your brain. As soon as your own brain appears in the model that exists in your brain, it can be said that you have become self aware. One thing to keep in mind is that there are many levels of self awareness.

>Or even better.. Where does awareness of others come from?

Percieving them? Getting to know them? This seems like a much simpler task than becoming aware of oneself.

>Maybe even better... Where does language come from?

Its something that organisms invented to communicate. Look at whales and dolphins. They discovered the practicality of language.

>And what about abstract thought?

Don't know. Whats teh difference between abstract thought and non-abstract thought. It seems to me that all thought requires even a single layer or abstraction. YOu are simply talking about the different levels of it.

>If so, then why even bother to have laws? Why shouldn't the US just nuke everyone and be done with it and demonstrate our genetic dominance?

US has a genetic dominance? Lol.

>I mean, if there is no real basis for being moral. Who cares? We have the power; let's just use it and wipe those we disagree with off the face of the planet

That certianly doesn't sound utilitarian to me.

>and move evolution along a bit.

Move it along how? If you believe that evolution has an ending point or path we are moving to or on, than once again, a deomnstration that you clearly do not understand evolution.

>I am being sarcastic of course but you have provided no logical reason for morals whatsoever.

There is no logical reason for ceberal cortexs either. There is no logical reason we have five toes instead of four. What does logic have to do with the features of organisms? They just evolve that way, not for any apparent reason, not towards any logical goal.

>So, taking your position let's just elaborate on it a bit - using your rules.

Sure. How do you want to start?