Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Being brilliant as I'm sure he was 40 years ago surely doesn't necessarily equate with current science, does it?

As for the rest of what you've written I have no real disagreement.

Current science doesn't back up what you are saying any more now than it did then.

Current science doesn't back up what you are saying any more now than it did then.

Tell me what you think current science says about TOE?

The two points I'm making with these examples is a.) the appearance of design is inherent throughout the natural world even when there is no design. b.) Why is it argued life must be the exception to the rule?

Polyani died 22 February 1976 perhaps use someone a bit more current.

From a blog his daughter started. Not someone I'd quote if I were you.

The snowflake is an exquisite example of the superficial appearance of apparent design in nature as exemplified by crystalography. I have explained how the design of living organisms is of an entirely different kind and order, embodying large amounts of complex specified information, which crystals do not. This truly does make living organisms of a fundamentally different nature than naturally ordered structures like crystals. 

There is a natural lawlike tendency of simple H2O molecules to form certain interesting shapes (snowflakes). But there is no tendency for simple organic molecules to form themselves into the precise and vastly complicated sequences needed to form the long-chain information-bearing molecules found in living systems. That is because the properties of the "finished product" are not programmed in any way into the physics or chemical properties of the components of the system.  For instance, what if you saw a doily crocheted into the pattern of a snowflake? There is no natural, spontaneous tendency for the components of that system (wool or cotton fibers) to assume that shape. The pattern has to have been imposed by external design information. If you disagree, please explain how.

Regardless of Yockey's disavowal of any tendency toward ID, I'll stick with the quote - it represents his expert opinion on the matter.

Tell me what you think current science says about TOE?

With regards to what we're discussing here in this thread, is the science right now substantially different than it was then? Trying to dismiss a scientist's opinion because it was from 40 years ago when no major shift has occurred in those 40 years is disingenuous.

With regards to what we're discussing here in this thread, is the science right now substantially different than it was then? Trying to dismiss a scientist's opinion because it was from 40 years ago when no major shift has occurred in those 40 years is disingenuous.

There ain't nothing wrong about questioning a scientist's expertise. It's done all the time. You might want to listen to the vid I posted earlier today with Michelle Thaller giving a talk on what it's like being a scientist.

The snowflake is an exquisite example of the superficial appearance of apparent design in nature as exemplified by crystalography. I have explained how the design of living organisms is of an entirely different kind and order, embodying large amounts of complex specified information, which crystals do not. This truly does make living organisms of a fundamentally different nature than naturally ordered structures like crystals. 

There is a natural lawlike tendency of simple H2O molecules to form certain interesting shapes (snowflakes). But there is no tendency for simple organic molecules to form themselves into the precise and vastly complicated sequences needed to form the long-chain information-bearing molecules found in living systems. That is because the properties of the "finished product" are not programmed in any way into the physics or chemical properties of the components of the system.  For instance, what if you saw a doily crocheted into the pattern of a snowflake? There is no natural, spontaneous tendency for the components of that system (wool or cotton fibers) to assume that shape. The pattern has to have been imposed by external design information. If you disagree, please explain how.

Regardless of Yockey's disavowal of any tendency toward ID, I'll stick with the quote - it represents his expert opinion on the matter.

You're avoiding this question. Why is life regarded differently than other self organising molecules?

You're avoiding this question. Why is life regarded differently than other self organising molecules?

You apparently haven't even read my posts. My answer is that it is different, in fundamental ways, and I explained how.

While I make no pretense of having a good grasp on biology. I am fascinated by the fact that many plants that Monsanto's roundup used to be effective on. Are now resistant.
While I think it's likely, there is a great deal going on that we don't understand. Fifty years seems like a short period of time for random mutations to supply the answers.

There is a natural lawlike tendency of simple H2O molecules to form certain interesting shapes (snowflakes). But there is no tendency for simple organic molecules to form themselves into the precise and vastly complicated sequences needed to form the long-chain information-bearing molecules found in living systems. That is because the properties of the "finished product" are not programmed in any way into the physics or chemical properties of the components of the system.  For instance, what if you saw a doily crocheted into the pattern of a snowflake? There is no natural, spontaneous tendency for the components of that system (wool or cotton fibers) to assume that shape. The pattern has to have been imposed by external design information. If you disagree, please explain how.

Ascribing what is possible through "natural lawlike tendencies" and what isn't, based on one's incredulity may be problematic.

While I make no pretense of having a good grasp on biology. I am  fascinated by the fact that many plants that Monsanto's roundup used to be effective on. Are now resistant.
While I think it's  likely, there is a great deal going on that we don't understand. Fifty years seems like a short period of time for random mutations to supply the answers.

Something to ponder. https://m.phys.org/news/2017-11-wolflike...yotes.html
Genetic changes can happen faster than one might expect.