[gonavy47]

Thanks for the explanation Caleb. I now know that I have to be more careful with my "gigantic cosmic crushing device", as it is an older model and prone to inconsistancy.

[Biblesmasher]

Annihilator Annihilator:

We've observed it in a few years. During the industrial revolution in the UK, trees changed from white to black because of pollution. It was followed in the same way by a race of butterflies. The white butterflies would not blend it anymore, so they got eaten by predators, and black butterfly survived.

We've also examined the same thing in a specie of lizards. They were left on an island for many years, and when we came back, they were significantly bigger and their jaws had changed.

No duuuude! Thats MICRO evolution! Something that has no bearing on speciation. Why? Because I said so.

Thus concludes lesson 1 in your Primer on "what to expect from a science denying moron". Tune in next week...

[GreenTiger]

At times I think we are living on the Planet of The Apes.

[Guy_Fawkes]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

At times I think we are living on the Planet of The Apes.

Then you take your pills and everything is fine again right?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

First off, to those of you who make cracks about my knowledge of science. In my 4th year of highschool, I only needed 4 credits to graduate. That year I decided to also take Gr.13 math, biology and chemistry. I took them because I enjoyed them. Math and science were my favourite subjects all through school. I still enjoy them. Doesn't make me a scientist by any means, but it did give me enough knowledge to say "Huh?" when something just don't add up, and gets me checking it out.
Now, while my personal belief is Creation, I'm not one of those ultra-right wing religious nut-jubs. I haven't been to church for over 25 years, with the exception of the occasional wedding.
I don't believe God created everything in 144 hours. I don't believe the Earth is only that old, or less, and I don't believe the flood of Noah's time wiped out the dinosaurs. I can't even begin to explain what's wrong with THOSE ideas. Well I could but that's not what this post is about. I'm also not blinded by faith.
I also get the impression you think I believe that Creationism should replace Evolutionism in the science classroom. Well I don't. Faith isn't science. Creationism IS a perfectly good topic for Philosphy or Religious Studies classes however.
Micro-evolution belongs in the science room. But I'm guessing simple adaptation isn't "sexy" enough. So it needs to be juiced with other theories that really have no scientific basis other than they are hypotheses put forward by scientists. And yet, the 2 theories that haven't been and/or can't be proven[yet], are taken as gospel today.

Let's tackle this one part at a time. First, I believe it was Guy_Fawkes that told me to check out abiogenisis, like this was some sort of proof. I was already aware of the "science" of chemical evolution. The Miller-Urey experiment has been shown to be totally irrelevent. And to be fair, anyone with high school chemistry could see that. Every "expanation" since for abiogenisis, has been nothing but, "We think that"... "may have", "might have", "possibly" and "probably".
Yeah, that sounds like hard empirical evidence to me So let's keep teaching it. Scientists can't even agree on whether the "soup" needed hot or cool conditions to "ferment". I'm sorry but abiogenisis is little more than sheer hypothesis, and a pretty weak one at that. And while hypotheses are necessary in the field of science, they are useless and deceiving in the classroom, unless explained as a hypothesis and nothing more. But in this case, it's not so. Obviously not if you believe it to be fact.
Even the father of Evolution himself said that discovering the origin of life is an impossibilty.
Words that were echoed later on by Neils Bohr and later still, by Dr. Hubert Yockey.
In other words, the problem is axiomatic. Here's what Dr. Yockey has to say: “The existence of the genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter. There is nothing in the non-living physico-chemical world that remotely resembles the reactions that are determined by a sequence (i.e., the genome) and codes between sequences (i.e., the genetic code) that occur in living matter.” "Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.
One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."
Now don't get yer knickers in a knot about the previous statement. Dr. Yockey is not a Creationists or IDist. What he is saying is until there is empirical evidence, the majority of people will still believe in Creation of some sort.
As for the claim that 95% of scientists don't believe in Creation. That's false. The figure is more accurate when you reverse it. Only 5% of scientists believe in a strictly Creationist or ID theory. However only 55% of scientists belive in Naturalistic evolution. 40% believe in Theistic Evolution." For the general population those figures are 44%, 10% and 39% respectively. It didn't say what the remaining 7% believed.
Dr. Yockey then goes on to say about the primordeal soup theory: "Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions. … The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life."
I think some of you need to re-read the italicized part and do some reflecting.
Based on almost every response I got in this thread, it looks like YOU also need that security blanket. Someone doubts evolution and holy shit, you all go batshit insane with the name calling and insults. That's the hallmark of the fool that thinks they truly KNOW the answer, even when there is no answer. But let's let the scientists tell it. In science, the burden of evidence is on the proposer of the theory. So although the evolutionists have the burden of providing evidence for their fanciful tales, they take no responsibility for a detailed account or for any evidence demonstrating feasibility. Contrarily, they go so far as to imply that anyone holding them to the normal requirements of science is feebleminded, deranged, or evil. For example, Professor Richard Dawkins has been quoted as saying, "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." Instead of taking proper responsibility for the burden of evidence, the evolutionist propagandizes by the intimidation of name calling. So, it's looking like strict adherents to evolution aren't the least bit interested in even allowing other points of view to exist. Such protection of a theory and such fear of questions being brought against fundamental aspects of a theory starts to turn what used to be science into a sort of religious-type dogma ... something like a holy, untouchable doctrine that must be ardently defended by the faithful. I can't help but think of the insults and name calling that IMMEDIATELY followed my original post.
To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist's burden of evidence to see where it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Dr. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability."
Richard Dawkins implicitly, yet unwittingly agreed with Yockey by stating, "Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one." The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."
It should be noted that Dr. Yockey, in general, posesses a highly critical attitude toward people who give credence toward natural origins of life even though he is not a Creationist or an IDist. In the journal of Theoretical Biology Yockey says: "You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present… Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, … it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public."
There's one other problem I haven't seen touched. The theory of abiogenisis states that life eventually emerged once and diversified. This miraculous event would have had to have taken place not once, but twice!!! Once for plant life, then again for animal life. Unless you wanna believe that we all ultimately came from some ancient form of plant life. Now, despite the claim that the origin of life is an axiom of science, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep looking for the answer. That's human nature. Just don't posit your postulations as fact. That's all I have to say about abiogenisis. All we know is, life originated somehow. It's what followed after that has any real chance of being answered.
I'm not going to bother much with micro-evolution because to me, it's just a fancy, if not somewhat deceiving name for adaptation. There's plenty of evidence of adaptation. The reason I suggest it's a somewhat deceiving term is, because of this minor process, it's been taken up a notch to explain way more than it possibly can ie; macro-evolution and chemical evolution.
Now, what about macro-evolution? What's funny is one of the arguments about why we can't see evolution happening, an argument used against me in this very thread I might add, is"because it takes millions of years." People who use that explanation show their own total cluelessness and absolute ignorance on the subject. "Evolution" happens on a daily basis in labs every day, specifically bacteria and viruses. However, it's not the kind of evolution that does much to further the cause because it is micro-evolution that is taking place.
Dr. Yockey continues, "The problem is that the proposed evolutionary mechanism of random mutation and function-based selection (i.e., Natural Selection) starts to stall out, in an exponential manner, with each step up the ladder of minimum structural threshold requirements. While there are many examples of evolution in action producing novel systems of function that require dozens to a few hundred fairly specified amino acid residues, there are no examples of evolution in action (i.e., examples that can actually be observed in real time) beyond the 1,000 amino acid threshold. There isn't a single example of such evolution in all of scientific literature - not one example."
"What is the reason for this stalling out effect? For this "limited evolutionary potential" where evolution happens very quickly for low-level functional systems, less quickly or less often for higher-level systems, and not at all beyond the 1,000amino acid structural threshold? Well, it seems as though the average distance between what exists in a gene pool and what might exist to some benefit within the vastness of the potential of sequence space grows in a linear manner with each increase in the minimum structural threshold requirements of different types of functional systems. Those types of systems that have greater minimum structural threshold requirements are more widely spaced, like islands in sequence space, from all other existing and potentially existing beneficial systems. These higher-level islands are surrounded, on all sides, by non-beneficial sequences so that getting from one island to the next by random mutation requires a truly random walk or random selection process. Nature cannot guide the series of mutations across this gap because nature only selects, in a positive manner, what works right now - not what might work in the future. So, until a random mutation happens to land on a distant island by sheer luck, natural selection plays no part. As it turns out, a linear increase in the non-beneficial gap size translates into an exponential increase in the average number of mutations (and time) necessary to cross the gap. Well before the 1,000amino acid threshold is reached, the average time required to cross the expanding gap works its way into the trillions upon trillions of years - even given a population of bacteria the size of all the bacteria on Earth with a high mutation rate". High would be one mutation per 100,000 base pairs per individual every 20 minutes.
That's a rather complex concept. I like to liken it to a trip to the grocery store. Now, I understand this probably over simplifies it but the concept still works. First off, Natural Selection doesn't take place until random chance does. Now, pretend your wife is Natural Selection and you are random chance. She's baking a cake but needs eggs, milk and flour. So off you go to the grocery store. Only there's one hitch, you're blindfolded. So you not only have to find your way there, you then have to pick out the exact right items. Now, let's say you got lucky and grabbed the milk but got cheese and sugar instead of eggs and flour. Your wife ie; Natural Selection, isn't going to hold onto the milk(or the other items for that matter) for later, simply because she'll need it later. Natural Selection only goes with what will work NOW, not some time in the future. This very simple "recipe" would take a long time to stumble across in this manner, but that's basically what random chance does, without knowing the recipe. Now imagine trying to find 1000 specific items at the grocery store in the same manner. Keep in mind, you're blindfolded the whole time and you'll have go to a different grocery store each time you don't get it right, until you get those specific items at the same time in one trip. All without knowing what you really need, until your wife says, "This'll work."
I have quoted Dr. Yockey's work extensively to satisfy those of you childishly demanding I provide evidence against evolution from a respected, published, mainstream scientist. Although IF you really wanted the truth, you could have found it just as easily as I did. Which leads me to believe that, just like us "religious" folks, you need something to believe in. Dr. Yockey, as I have already mentioned is NOT a Creationists nor an IDist. He has been published no fewer than 33 times since 1955 for his work in the fields of Information Theory in Molecular Biology and the Origin of Life as well as 3 books: Symposium on Information Theory in Biology(1958), Information Theory and Molecular Biology(1992), and Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life(2005). He is also a Nuclear Physicist. To be fair, Dr Yockey does believe in the evolutionary process at some level, he's just honest enough to admit that we still haven't got a clue HOW it happened. And if you don't know the processes involved, you can't say definitively that it DID happen. Also, my original post was about being evolved from monkeys, which is total bullshit and the scientists know it as well.
Here's where the problem really lies. If evolution were to suddenly be proved invalid as a theory, a LOT of scientists would be out of funding. So it's pretty hard to vary from a point of view that your paycheck depends on. Not to mention they'd have to start all over again in the search for a new answer, since they would obviously reject any form of Creation or Intelligent Design. Not to mention all the atheists that now have no answers, no connectedness. The nature of this causes proponents of evolution to assert that since this is the only scientific explanation we have for now, it must be the ONLY explanation. Even when that explanation is still highly questionable.
Likewise, if evolution were proved to be absolute fact, it would have enormous theological implications for hundreds of MILLIONS of people.
I'll say this much, if science is able to provide irrefutible, empirical evidence for abiogenisis and/or macro-evolution, I'll be one of the first to say, "Holy shit, they WERE right!"

I also have no reason or need to continue to debate this with people that have no Doctorates in science and can only resort to kneejerk reactions to protect their belief system. If you really want to get an honest answer, you have a name to start with. I ain't gonna do all your research for you.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Actually, I told you to check out abiogenisis so you could know what it is. It is still an incredibly rough theory, and in no way is it perfect. It should also show you that the creation of life is a completely different study from the diversity of life. However, you decided to take your own view on my recomendation and completely missed my point. I wanted you to connect A to B in a linear line, instead you drew a happy face and used points A and B for eyes.

Let me ask you another question, I know you probably wont answer it but here goes, did humans live with Dinosaurs?

If the answer is yes, then where are the fossils?

If the answer is no, then how did humans come into existance?

Your theory of "Only micro evolution is possible!" does not answer these questions, while the scientific community can. I do feel sorry for you and your ilk, youre a dying breed. The more and more we discover about our origins, the more and more people will laugh at creationists.

For those who are are the fence and dont know what the answers are, please check out DonExodus2 (intoduction to evolution) or thunderf00t ("Why people laugh at creationists" Parts 1-28)

I also tried to read all of your 'post' Public, but if your not going to at least post where you copy and pasted from Im not going to bother to read all of it.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

First off, to those of you who make cracks about my knowledge of science. In my 4th year of highschool, I only needed 4 credits to graduate. That year I decided to also take Gr.13 math, biology and chemistry. I took them because I enjoyed them. Math and science were my favourite subjects all through school. I still enjoy them. Doesn't make me a scientist by any means, but it did give me enough knowledge to say "Huh?" when something just don't add up, and gets me checking it out.
Now, while my personal belief is Creation, I'm not one of those ultra-right wing religious nut-jubs. I haven't been to church for over 25 years, with the exception of the occasional wedding.

It may be that your familiar with some basic science courses, but with every post you reinforce your ignorance of what science is and what it does. You're simply trying to contort it to fit your perceived beliefs and that, my friend, is not science.

$1:

Micro-evolution belongs in the science room. But I'm guessing simple adaptation isn't "sexy" enough. So it needs to be juiced with other theories that really have no scientific basis other than they are hypotheses put forward by scientists. And yet, the 2 theories that haven't been and/or can't be proven[yet], are taken as gospel today.

Science is not gospel. The gospels, unlike scientific theories, don’t change.

$1:

Yeah, that sounds like hard empirical evidence to me So let's keep teaching it. Scientists can't even agree on whether the "soup" needed hot or cool conditions to "ferment". I'm sorry but abiogenisis is little more than sheer hypothesis, and a pretty weak one at that. And while hypotheses are necessary in the field of science, they are useless and deceiving in the classroom, unless explained as a hypothesis and nothing more. But in this case, it's not so. Obviously not if you believe it to be fact.

Scientists aren't supposed to agree. Ideally, they develop a hypothesis and create an experiment with the express purpose of disproving that hypothesis (as opposed to creationists who tend to develop arguments to support their hypothesis). Based on that they develop a theory. A theory doesn't have to be true, it just has to fit all observed phenomena. If it does, the theory stands. If it doesn't it must evolve. Some theories have a lot of evidence to support them. Others (such as the origin of "life" or the first few nanoseconds of the universe) don't have much.

It's fine to poke holes in, but you don't present a competing theory. How then did life evolve? What explanation do you have for fossils and Neanderthals? And remember--science is concerned only with the natural world, so you can't invoke a supernatural origin unless you want to leave the realm of science for that of metaphysics.

$1:

Even the father of Evolution himself said that discovering the origin of life is an impossibility.

You've already stated several times that Darwin is wrong. So why do you use him to support your argument here?

$1:

Now don't get yer knickers in a knot about the previous statement. Dr. Yockey is not a Creationists or IDist. What he is saying is until there is empirical evidence, the majority of people will still believe in Creation of some sort.

And that's fine too. But unless the Creator is natural (as opposed to supernatural) then such questions do not concern science.

$1:

As for the claim that 95% of scientists don't believe in Creation. That's false. The figure is more accurate when you reverse it. Only 5% of scientists believe in a strictly Creationist or ID theory. However only 55% of scientists believe in Naturalistic evolution. 40% believe in Theistic Evolution." For the general population those figures are 44%, 10% and 39% respectively. It didn't say what the remaining 7% believed.

So you're saying that those that believed in "theistic evolution" are "Creationists"? Not sure I'd agree with that.

$1:

I think some of you need to re-read the italicized part and do some reflecting.
Based on almost every response I got in this thread, it looks like YOU also need that security blanket. Someone doubts evolution and holy shit, you all go batshit insane with the name calling and insults. That's the hallmark of the fool that thinks they truly KNOW the answer, even when there is no answer. But let's let the scientists tell it. In science, the burden of evidence is on the proposer of the theory. So although the evolutionists have the burden of providing evidence for their fanciful tales, they take no responsibility for a detailed account or for any evidence demonstrating feasibility. Contrarily, they go so far as to imply that anyone holding them to the normal requirements of science is feebleminded, deranged, or evil.

To be clear, the issue is not that someone "insults" evolution, at least for me. The issue is when people want to bring a supernatural entity into science class. The moment you credit a "God" with doing anything, you are no longer using science. That is what provokes my response.

$1:

For example, Professor Richard Dawkins has been quoted as saying, "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

I'd tend to agree that scientists have the capacity to be just as dogmatic as others. However, because of its unique process (scientific method), such dogma is doomed to eventually fall. This, again, differentiates science from religious faith.

$1:

To set a better example, .... In the journal of Theoretical Biology Yockey says: "You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present… Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, … it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public."

There's one other problem I haven't seen touched. The theory of abiogenisis states that life eventually emerged once and diversified. This miraculous event ...

Again, because there is a paucity of scientific evidence supporting a given theory (the origin of life) does not mean you can just invoke the trump card—a god—and be done with it. I note that Yockey merely says we are very ignorant of the issue. I agree. But note he does not invoke God.

$1:

I have quoted Dr. Yockey's work extensively to satisfy those of you childishly demanding I provide evidence against evolution from a respected, published, mainstream scientist.

And Dr. Yockey's points are all good. He points out weaknesses in the theory, as a good scientist should. But he doesn't provide a better competing theory, therefore we're still stuck with the one we've got, one for which there is, Dr. Yockey's comments notwithstanding, significant evidence. I noted a couple of weaknesses in his comments as well, some unstated assumptions. If I were a publishing scientists, I might write a paper to point those out, and so on and that's how science moves forward.

But creationist don't want to move science forward. They want to subsume it, to bend it to their will, to make it prove what they want.

$1:

Here's where the problem really lies. If evolution were to suddenly be proved invalid as a theory, a LOT of scientists would be out of funding.

This is one that I hear quite a bit on the climate science side of things too. It implies that this whole Evolution meme is being driven by a bunch of scientists afraid of losing their "funding." Tell me, I'd be interested--how much funding is there in Canada for scientists publishing on macro-evolution and the origin of life? I hear this claim a lot, but never see much in the way of numbers to back it up. I'd be interested to know. One billion a year? Five billion? It must be some astronomically high number if this cabal of scientists have successfully warped the system for nigh on a century and a half now.
And since your drawing material interests into the argument why don't we look at what the interests are for the creationist side. Do they not have something at stake as well? The religious lobby in many countries has significant clout, and there is a lot of power involved.
If you’re going to ascribe ulterior motives to one side of the issue, you must at least allow for the same on the other.

$1:

I also have no reason or need to continue to debate this with people that have no Doctorates in science and can only resort to kneejerk reactions to protect their belief system. If you really want to get an honest answer, you have a name to start with. I ain't gonna do all your research for you.

Well seeing as you apparently only have high school science, it is a little hoity-toity of you to declare that you will only continue the conversation with Ph.D. scientists. Chances are you wouldn’t understand such a scientist anyways, if she were discussing her field.
But anyway, you don’t need a person with a doctorate in science, just a good understanding of what science is and does.

[Wada]

I'd love for someone to prove that humans have evolved at all.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Oh for fuck sakes, just type in the good Doctor's name in any search engine and you'll find over 2000 sites about Dr.Yockey and evolution. Dr. Yockey isn't a non-believer in evolution per se, he's just honest enough to admit that we really don't know yet. And that science has not come up with a persuasive enough argument to convince the MAJORITY of people that there is something other than a faith based reason for our existence.
You and your ilk may smirk and make snide remarks about us being a dying breed but there are still a few billion people on this planet that believe in Creation of some sort.
Here's the difference though, I'm not on here telling you that Creation is the only possibility. I'm telling you that evolutionists have NOT come up with overwhelming empirical evidence about any of it. It is STILL speculation.
And if ya want some credentials on Dr. Yockey, here's a nice CUT AND PASTE list of his publsihed works:
Publications by Hubert P. Yockey, Ph.D.

Books

Yockey, Hubert P. (2005) Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life. Cambridge University Press.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press.

Yockey, Hubert P.; Platzman, Robert P.; and Quastler, Henry, eds. (1958) Symposium on Information Theory in Biology, New York, London: Pergamon Press.


Scientific Publications on Information Theory in Molecular Biology and the Origin of Life

Yockey, Hubert P, (2003) Calculating Evolution, Cosmic Pursuit, 3 24-29.

Yockey. Hubert P. (2002) More light on pioneers of electrochemistry Nature 415. 833.

Yockey, Hubert P. (2002) Comment on “Some like it hot, but not the first biomolecules, Science 296, 1982-1983.

Yockey, Hubert P. (2002) Information theory, evolution and the origin of life In: Fundamentals of Life, Gyuala Pályi and Luciano Caglioti.

Yockey, Hubert P. (2001) Behe’s Irreducible complexity and evolutionary theory, Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 21, 18-20.

Yockey, Hubert P. (2001) Origin Of Life On Earth and Shannon’s Theory Of Communication In: Proceedings Atlantic Symposium on the origin of life: Information Systems & Technology, Cathy C. Wu, Paul P. Wang & Jason T. Wang, editors.

Yockey, Hubert P. (2000) Origin Of Life On Earth and Shannon’s Theory Of Communication In: Open Problems of computational molecular biology Computers & Chemistry 24 issue 1 pp105-123. [This was an invited paper.]

Yockey, Hubert P. (1998) Life on Mars From ALH84001? Revisited, Origins & Design 19, 4-5.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1997) Walther Löb, Stanley L. Miller and “Prebiotic Building Blocks” in the Silent Electrical Discharge Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41, Autumn, pp1125-131.

Yockey, Hubert P. E. Haeckel, C. Darwin, A. Oparin, Stanley Miller, Walther Löb and the History of the Origin of Life, Invited paper at The Chemistry of Life’s Origins, a two-day symposium on the origins of life with 18 speakers. Part of the Northeast Regional Meeting of the American Chemical Society, June 23-24, 1997.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1997) Life on Mars? Did it Come from Earth? Origins & Design 18, 10-15 (1997).

Yockey, Hubert P. (1995). Comment on “Let There Be Life” by Avshalom C. Elitzur. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 176, 349-355.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1995). Information in bits and bytes. BioEssays, 17, 85-88.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1993) Children of Choice Nature 364, p10.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1992) Big vs. Little Science: A Lesson from Alvarez. Physics Today, 45, p92.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1990) When is random random? Nature 344, p823.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1988) Of Particles, Pyramids and Piper Playing. Physics Today, 41, 129-130.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1986) Materialist Origin of Life Scenarios and Creationism Creation/Evolution Issue XVII, 6, 43-45.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1981). Self-organization origin of life scenarios and information theory. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 91, 13-31.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1979). Do overlapping genes violate molecular biology and the theory of evolution? Journal of Theoretical Biology, 80, 21-26.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1978). Can the Central Dogma be derived from information theory? Journal of Theoretical Biology, 74, 149-152.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1977a). A prescription that predicts functionally equivalent residues at given sites in protein sequences. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67, 337-343.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1977b). On the information content of cytochrome c. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67, 345-376.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1977c). A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67, 377-398.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1974). An application of information theory to the Central Dogma and the sequence hypothesis. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 46, 369-406.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1973) Information Theory with Applications to Biogenesis and Evolution In Biogenesis Evolution Homeostasis ed. A. Locker, New York, Heidelberg Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1960). “The Use of Information Theory in Aging and Radiation Damage,” in The Biology of Aging. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Symposium No. 6 (160), pp338-347.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1958). A study of aging, thermal killing and radiation damage by information theory. In Symposium on Information Theory in Biology. eds. Hubert P. Yockey, Robert Platzman & Henry Quastler, pp. 297-316. New York, London: Pergamon Press.

Yockey, Hubert P. (1956). An application of information theory to the physics of tissue damage. Radiation Research, 5, 146-155.
Condensed Matter Physics

Yockey, Hubert P. & Clifford L. Aseltine. Development of high voltages in potassium dihydrogen phosphate irradiated by g rays. Physical Review B, 11, (1975), 437-438.

Helmut H.A. Krueger, William R. Cook Jr., C.C. Sartain & Hubert P. Yockey. Radiation Damage and the Ferroelectric Effect in Rochelle Salt. Journal of Applied Physics, 34, (1963), 218-224.

C.C. Sartain & H.P. Yockey. Cryostat for Reactor Irradiation. The Review of Scientific Instruments, 29, (1958), 118-121.

M.R. Jeppson, R.L. Mather, A. Andrew & H.P. Yockey. Creep of Aluminum Under Cyclotron Irradiation. Journal of Applied Physics, 26 (1955), 365-376.

Health Physics and Radiation Protection

H.P. Yockey, Symposium on the Effect of the Recommendations of the National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) on National Life, Health Physics, 4, (1961), p205.

[Guy_Fawkes]

All I was looking for was the web site you copied your post from so I could see who else contributes to them and find out their bias on the subject. Also you should read Prof Dawkins books, they are very insightful, instead of going by what other people say about them.

Also most of your bibliography of his books are little blurbs in science journals, I wouldnt mind reading some of his stuff though. I would like to see how he explains how evolution is not possible or that it does not have enough evidence to support itself. Most of the stuff I have found from him are against abiogenesis, something I dont think he has kept current with. I tried to get more information on him but from what I could find it says he spends most of the time canoeing and hasnt contributed much lately, he is in his late 70's.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I know what science is and does Zip. And I have never invoked God in any of my arguments either. I merely stated what I BELIEVED. I have not once on this thread said that Creation is the only possible answer, not once. Belief and fact aren't necessarily the same thing. Not even in the world of science. I also pointed out that the majority of scientific arguments for evolution have also been shot down with the use of science, by this particular scientist, among others, who "didn't invoke God." And if you read up on him, he seems pretty damn knowledgable and well respected in his field.
You seem to be confused as to where I'm coming from. If you even bothered to actually read the science part of the posts, and maybe tried checking out Dr. Yockey's work, you would be intelligently debating that instead of coming up with strawman arguments about my belief system.
I merely contended that much of what is being taught as FACT is indeed, NOT fact.
And I used Dr. Yockey's work to verify that statement. And for you to assume that I wouldn't be able to understand explanations from a scientist in their field is pure garbage. You have no idea what I could or couldn't understand. Or was that just your clumsy way of deflecting the fact you didn't understand the scientist's explanation in my big post?
Now let's tackle Guy's humans and dinosaurs question. Humans were not around at the same time. Where did they come from? You tell me, yer the one trying to convince me of evolution, so I'd say the burden is on you. Hmmm now who else said that??? Oh yeah, DR. YOCKEY.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I know what science is and does Zip. And I have never invoked God in any of my arguments either. I merely stated what I BELIEVED. I have not once on this thread said that Creation is the only possible answer, not once. Belief and fact aren't necessarily the same thing. Not even in the world of science. I also pointed out that the majority of scientific arguments for evolution have also been shot down with the use of science, by this particular scientist, among others, who "didn't invoke God." And if you read up on him, he seems pretty damn knowledgable and well respected in his field.
You seem to be confused as to where I'm coming from. If you even bothered to actually read the science part of the posts, and maybe tried checking out Dr. Yockey's work, you would be intelligently debating that instead of coming up with strawman arguments about my belief system.
I merely contended that much of what is being taught as FACT is indeed, NOT fact.
And I used Dr. Yockey's work to verify that statement. And for you to assume that I wouldn't be able to understand explanations from a scientist in their field is pure garbage. You have no idea what I could or couldn't understand. Or was that just your clumsy way of deflecting the fact you didn't understand the scientist's explanation in my big post?
Now let's tackle Guy's humans and dinosaurs question. Humans were not around at the same time. Where did they come from? You tell me, yer the one trying to convince me of evolution, so I'd say the burden is on you. Hmmm now who else said that??? Oh yeah, DR. YOCKEY.

Dr. Yockey doesn't seem to propose an alternate theory. Nor do the creationists--so, I think we're stuck with what we got, whi ch is this advancing notion of evolution. It could all change. Relativistic physics turned Newtonian physics on its head. Continental drift changed theories of how land was shaped.

I'm an evolutionary believer, however I would not classify myself as an atheist. To parpahrase Shakespeare, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosopphy.

Good debating with you though. cheers.

[Guy_Fawkes]

What strawmen? Your the one who has dodged my questions.

The answer for where humans came from is they evolved into existance from an distant ancestor of humanity.

As I have said before, there are people much more qualified than I to show you the answer. You just have to sit and watch.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

:roll:
All I was looking for was the web site you copied your post from so I could see who else contributes to them and find out their bias on the subject. Also you should read Prof Dawkins books, they are very insightful, instead of going by what other people say about them.

Also most of your bibliography of his books are little blurbs in science journals, I wouldnt mind reading some of his stuff though. I would like to see how he explains how evolution is not possible or that it does not have enough evidence to support itself. Most of the stuff I have found from him are against abiogenesis, something I dont think he has kept current with. I tried to get more information on him but from what I could find it says he spends most of the time canoeing and hasnt contributed much lately, he is in his late 70's.

Yeah, I think his last published work was '05 or '06. But one of the reasons I really respect his work is not because I use it as proof against evolution, its because his honesty about the subject is refreshing. He's not a Creationist or IDist either so I like that about him too. Like I said, and I'm serious, when I say this, if scientists were to come up with irrefutible proof that all life evolved from one common ancestor, I would be one of the first to say,"Damn, I guess they were right after all."

I do have one question for you though that may have got buried in that long post of mine. How did life start twice? I mean plant life would be the obvious first form of life to "evolve" but how did this event happen twice?!

Oh and btw Guy? That strawman statement wasn't meant for you

[Guy_Fawkes]

Life start twice? huh?