10^4000 Protein FATAL To Evolutionism:

[BroilJAB]

"The needed first step in Evolution is now
known to be mathematically impossible from
molecular chemistry."
-- Sir Hoyle, Nobel Laureate

[linuxgal]

"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant
market share." -- Steve Ballmer, USA Today, April 30, 2007.

[MarkA]

It's funny when a scientist claims to know everything that there is to
know about a topic. It reminds me of the physicists at the end of the
19th century, who thought that they knew pretty much all there was to
know about physics, and the future history of their field would be merely
refining the precision to which measurements are made. That was before
the discovery of either Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. And, well before
the discovery of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Strange how you never know what you'll find under the next rock you turn
over, isn't it?

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 6 Mar, 17:51, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 14:45:56 -0800, BroilJAB wrote:
> > "The needed first step in Evolution is now
> > known to be mathematically impossible from
> > molecular chemistry."
> > -- Sir Hoyle, Nobel Laureate
>
> It's funny when a scientist claims to know everything that there is to
> know about a topic.  It reminds me of the physicists at the end of the
> 19th century, who thought that they knew pretty much all there was to
> know about physics, and the future history of their field would be merely
> refining the precision to which measurements are made.  That was before
> the discovery of either Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.  And, well before
> the discovery of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

The funny thing is, this "quote" is totally made up.

The late Frederick Hoyle never said or wrote any such thing.

And poor little BroilJAB can't even get the probability value right.

He's quoting poor little IlBeBauck's misquotation.

Sad isn't it?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 12:51:36 -0500, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>
wrote:

Hoyle was an astronomer who was remarkably ignorant about other
fields, yet he made pronouncements in them for which he was
unqualified.

He was not a Nobel laureate.

His most useful contribution was the formation of the heavier elements
through fusion in stars. But he was also a crackpot in denial about
the big bang, the reason it was hypothesised and the evidence that
supported it.

Also about panspermia because he had observed organics including amino
acids in interstellar clouds and thought it was so unlikely that was
the only place they were formed, in spite of experiments showing their
formation in the lab under a variety of conditions.

[Irreverend Dave]

Hoyle supported the Steady State hypothesis of the universe. In all
fairness to Hoyle, he wasn't the only one at that time. I remember
reading somewhere that his reason for rejecting the Big Bang had, in
part, something to do with the implication of the universe having a
"beginning", as in "In the beginning". Hoyle was an atheist.

>
> Also about panspermia because he had observed organics including amino
> acids in interstellar clouds and thought it was so unlikely that was
> the only place they were formed, in spite of experiments showing their
> formation in the lab under a variety of conditions.

I'm not sure that Hoyle's panspermia argument has been completely
dismissed as impossible.



--
Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe,
but in proportion to their readiness to doubt - Ambrose Bierce

[Christopher A. Lee]

There's no need to.

The building blocks of life have been shown to occur under a wide
variety of conditions.

He thought it was so unlikely it could only have happened once and
having observed it in space through spectroscopy that was the only
place it happened.

Even though it had already been shown to happen in the lab under a
variety of different natural conditions.

Not just the Miller/Urey experiment. Eg in 1964 Fox and Harada got
similar results using heated silica sand as a catalyst - the same
Sidney Fox who used those amino acids to form first thermal proteins
and then simple proto cells.

And he followed on the work of Alphonso Herrera who had shown how to
produce amino acids under terrestrial conditions before WW2.

You can forgive Hoyle for not knowing about Herrera or Fox, but even
schoolboys knew about the Miller/Urey experiment.

[Brian E. Clark]

In article <c04777cd-b865-4952-8345-418b9a89f390
@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Design...@wmconnect.com
says...

When did Fred Hoyle win a Nobel? And why has this news been
hidden all these years?

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

[Christopher A. Lee]

He's been very critical of the Nobel process twice, because didn't
approve of their choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

Hoyle was also at the center of two controversies involving the
politics for selecting the Nobel Prize for Physics. The first came
when the 1974 prize went, in part, to Antony Hewish for his decisive
role in the discovery of pulsars, Hoyle made an off-the-cuff remark
to a reporter in Montreal that "Yes, Jocelyn Bell was the actual
discoverer, not Hewish, who was her supervisor, so she should have
been included." This remark received widespread international
coverage. Worried about British libel laws, Hoyle wrote a careful
letter of explanation to The Times.[5]

The second controversy came when the 1983 prize went in part to
William Alfred Fowler "for his theoretical and experimental studies
of the nuclear reactions of importance in the formation of the
chemical elements in the universe." Hoyle had been one of the key and
original workers in nucleosynthesis, so there was some suspicion that
Hoyle was denied the third place in the prize because of his earlier
public disagreement with the 1974 award.[18] An alternative view is
that the Nobel Prize is not just an award for a piece of work, but a
recognition of a scientist's overall reputation. With Hoyle having
loudly championed many disreputable and disproven ideas, the Nobel
committee may have not wanted to award Hoyle the Prize and validate
Hoyle's "rubbish".

It also lists his "controversies"...

Steady state, especially some of his contrived ad hoc "explanations"
after it was pretty clear he was wrong.

Rejection of Earth-based abiogenesis.

Influenza coming from space during sunspots.

Archaeopteryx was a fake.

Oil and natural gas are the products of deep carbon deposits rather
than fossilised organic material.

Stonehenge was built by the stone age Britons to predict eclipse.

[linuxgal]

Then again, Al Gore, Obama, and Arafat are Nobel Laureates. They're a
dime a dozen these days.

[Dakota]

Is DesignDenier the latest BroilJab sock?