> I gladly accept your challenge.

What challenge? I asked you which refereed, peer-reviewed journals you are publishing your mathematical proof that evolution is not possible. Where is your answer? _Nature_ is generally considered the best place for such a paper, though you may wish to also try _Scientific American._

> Since you are willing to admit that evolution cannot > be proven I think this is a good place to start.

I said no such thing: I said evolutionary theory cannot be proven; I did not say evolution "cannot be proven." This is true with the heliocentric theory of Earth's orbit; the photosymthetic theory of plant glucose processing; hydrodynamic theory; indeed, every theory is not provable.

You asserted you had "two degrees in advanced sciences," and yet you do not appear to know this fact. How could this be?

> I am surpriized that neither you or your friend > haven't the slightest clue of the mathematics involved.

That is why I have been asking you for which refereed, peer-reviewed journals you are publishing your astounding discovery that you have mathematical proof that evolution is impossible. I keep my eye on these publications, so I know that you have not yet presented your astounding discovery. When will you do so? Such a proof will utterly sunder all of biology off its foundations, and render a score of subsidiary fundamental sciences teetering. You will be famouse and richly rewarded for your discovery--- so where is it published?

> So I will keep it simple. I will start you off with a > simple reading and then the discussion can proceed > from there. Of course to prove that evolution is > quite mathematically possible you (as any true > scientist would) you would then have to prove evolution.

Ooops! You have again demonstrated a fundamental ignorance about how science operates--- YOU made the claim that you have a mathematical proof that demonstrates evolution is impossible. You may not shift the burden of proof on to me by insisting that I show otherwise: YOU made the claim of negation: YOU provide this evidence of yours.

What, indeed, are you waiting for?

> In which case we would no longer be talking about a > theory anymore and you would have advanced science > multiple millineum. If you can't then it is simply an > unprovable theory and be taught as such (which is not > how I was taught it in junior high school, high > school or college (they had better sense than to > teach it in medical school).

Evolutionary theory has not been taught in junior high school or high school for decades (just when did you graduate?). When it is taught (college and above), evolutionary theory is taught as a theory, not a fact. Evolution is taught as a fact, however, since it is observed. Evolutionary theory describes and defines the fact of evolution. How is it possible that someone with "two degrees in advanced sciences" not know the difference?

However, you are avoiding the issue. Where is your mathematical proof that evolution is not possible?

> I will start you and your friend out with the > publication "A calculation of the probability of > spontaneous biogenesis by information theory" by > Hubert P. Yockey- Journal of Theoretical Biology > 67:377-98. Happy reading and analysis!

Is that supposed to be a joke of some kind? The actual reference is:

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

and he was discussing "spontanious biogenesis---- not biopoesis, let alone evolution, let alone evolutionary theory. I have also read:

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

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

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 which predicts functionally equivalent residues at given sites in protein sequences. 67, 337-343.

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

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

Information in bits and bytes; Reply to Lifson's Review of "Information Theory and Molecular" Biology BioEssays v17 p85-88 (1995)

and an advanced copy of:

Comments on "Let there be life; Thermodynamic Reflections on Biogenesis and Evolution by Avshalom C. Elitzur Journal of Theoretical Biology in press (1995).

I have been unable to find his earlier works (1906s and older).

Guess what--- NOWHERE has he ever demonstrated that evolution is impossible. The article you referenced states no such thing; none of his books state any such thing; non of the other articles by him I have read so state what you assert he does. He asserted, CORRECTLY, that the spontanious generation of a single gene by chance is billions-to-one against. No scientist working in the evolutionary sciences would disagree with him.

However, I know why you believe he does: Creationists have been misquoting him for twenty years, from the "Revised Quote Book" that is published by the Creationist cult in Australia. Since Yockey often quotes the Hebrew Testament in his books, one can see why the Creationist cults have made him their boy.

So. I ask you again: you asserted that you have mathematical proof that demonstrates that evolution is not possible. Where is this proof? --
Rev David Michael Rice
Mariner's Ministries, Dana Point.
http://holysmoke.org/icr-cult.htm