Defiance of the law is violation of the law. What law, precisely, is being defied?
I don't know the specific law, but the fact is, matter does not self assemble and form into structures that are orders of magnitude more complex and ordered, and gain extraordinary amounts of information in the process.
If that was a property of matter, then surely it would have been observed and identified by now.
I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the known laws of Science cannot explain the formation of Life forms..
Neuroscience adequately explains the words you are writing
Neuroscience is purely a physical process that can explained via physics and chemistry, but how can it explain the creation of information, something which is by nature, non physical?
The words I am writing to you now, do they have physical properties? Only if they are written into something like a piece of paper, or stone, but the words themselves have
meaning which cannot be explained using physics and chemistry.
Thats the intangible nature of information, and only Consciousness (something which is Itself non physical) can apprehend it.
chemistry explains genetics.
Really, then how does brute chemistry explain the specific order of nucleotide bases in DNA.....when there are no chemical bonds a long the information bearing axis of the molecule to begin with?
I did read it, I asked for the calculations, not the numbers some people got from calculations, supposedly. However, more than that, your creationist quote mine website doesn't show what you think it does.
I think you have to have access to Scientific research papers to find out how the odds were calculated....something which I don't have.
At any rate, can you show me a statistical analysis that "favors" the odds of life emerging from inorganic matter?
The quote from Blum, first of all, seems to be between 50-60 years old (as it seems to come somewhere in his work Time's Arrow and Evolution first published in 1951 and updated a couple more times with new editions) and so is pretty useless in terms modern science anyway. More than that, the actual quote from Blum seems to be that last line at the end, the rest being slapped on as commentary by an unknown, and therefor non-credible party. Further still, based on the larger body of the work, he seems to be how evolution takes place within the second law of thermodynamics, his conclusion still being it does with no indication he holds any kind of guided process.
Fine, lets dismiss this one..
The second quote from Morowitz was deliberately and willfully lifted out of context by creationists. Indeed he very explicitly saying the exact opposite of what they are claiming he says. The quote, in full context, is a description of how in a static environment the odds are extremely low, however, the Earth is not a static environment. What is more, Morowitz explicitly rejects creationism as a viable solution
Do you have the full quote from him?
The final quote from Yockey, once again, is 35 years old, which isn't a good start, but more than that no part of evolutionary theory, or even abiogenesis requires fully formed modern polypeptides to suddenly appear out of nowhere. It does, however, have well documented evidence of which they can form gradually over time into gradually more complex and stable compounds. What is more, even your uncited source admits Yockey still believed in evolution despite the supposed calculations and so clearly he must not have found them that convincing and so why should I?
Yockey was just calculating the odds. The fact that he is an evolutionist has nothing to do with anything.
Sir Fred Hoyle is another one that has done calculations in to the probability of Life arising by chance:
"...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."
Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,
Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck
Street, London W1M 8LX:
J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 148, 24,150,30,31).
And yet, Fred Hoyle is (or was since he passed away) an
avowed atheist and anti-theist..