I see you've dropped Yockey's name, perhaps due to my corrections,
yet you continue to abuse him. When I read the above I thought
it sounded familiar, so I looked at the index of Yockey's book
under alchemists and found section 10.9.2 "Is chemical evolution
a latter day alchemism?" beginning on page 286. The title is
suggestive enough, but there is also the quote on page 288,
"Although it was justified when the work started, chemical
evolution, a latter-day alchemism, is still-born and no
amount of work on that paradigm, however religiously it
may be carried out, will tell us how life originated."
--Hubert Yockey, <Information Theory and Molecular Biology>
Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Joel asks whether you are discussing the origin of life.
Clearly you are but for some reason, though you copied
many other of Yockey's words, you wrote evolution instead
of chemical evolution. You also pretended elsewhere that
Yockey's calculations had something to do with mutations,
again suggesting evolution rather than chemical evolution.
What gives Joseph? Have you just misunderstood what Yockey
wrote or are you deliberately trying to mislead?
Also, if you think Yockey's results are so devasting to
evolution then how can you explain the fact that Yockey is an
evolutionist?
Since you have obviously read section 10.9.2 of his book,
did you notice the following sentence on page 287?
"I showed that one is justified in believing that life
originated on Earth (and did not come from outer space,
section 10.8) several to many times in the period between
4.0x10^6 and 3.8x10^6 years ago."-- Hubert Yockey
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It appears to me that this author is asking
much less than what you are refusing to answer"
-- Galileo (as Simplicio in _The Dialogue_)