Do you have a link with more information about the convention? It sounds really interesting!
I’m looking ofr it now- but also check out Demski’s site (just be aware that he is rabidly attacked by diehard evoltuionists for his mathematical conclusions-) I think his full name is bill demski if I remember right
I’m gonnah ve to find that late tonight- we’re gettign bad lightiening here- shutting down computer- I did a quick search, but am not findign it- but i have come across it before- so it’s there- somewhere0- just gotta find it
I was mistaken, it was in philidelphia, not chicago- here’s a blurb from pathlights site
[[*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells). ]]
[[A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its “fitness” and “adaptation” theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.]]
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm
The consensus of them eetign was that evoltuion was not mathematically possible- not any part of it-
I knew I had read soemwhere abotu a chicago science meeting- here’s a little blurb from trueorigins site (the whole article is a fascinating one in which Tim Wallace destroys the concept that an ‘becausel ife is an open system, evoltuion ‘coudl be possible’ argument which evolutionists like to claim (usually while gleefully stating ‘Creationists and ID adherents are ignroant of how the Second law of Thermodynamics works ‘in an open system’’)
[[“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.”
[As reported by Roger Lewin (evolutionist), “Evolutionary theory under fire,” Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980, p. 883]]]
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#thermo
Evoltuionists liek to extrapolate a hypothesis into an ‘ipso facto’ statement- but wallace does an excellent job here of showing how silly the evoltutionist’s idea that an open system ‘which adds energy’ and which ‘could result in a lower law of entropy’ somehow negates the second law of thermodynamics, thereby making ‘evolution a possibility’ really is- (Let’s not forget, that even after facing all the chemical, biological and mathematical impossibilites, as well as the FACT that mutations only work on info already present and have no way of ADDING new non species specific info except as a possible parasitic host/symbiotic relationship, that evoltuion then still has to face the FACT that even in a system where it is ‘theoretically possible that entropy ‘could’ be reduced slightly’, evoltuion would still be boudn by the law and could not happen because of entropy spoiling hte process before it ocudl even get started (ignoring hte FACT that it couldn’t get started i nthe firstr place, because it’s biologically, chemically, and mathematically impossible)
He explains it better than i could- Her’s another short blurb:
[[However, here on earth, the popular evolutionary line of reasoning goes, we have an “exception,” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things,” Isaak says. And indeed, solar energy is added to the open sub-system of the earth continuously. But simply adding raw energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, build-up rather than break-down). If this were true, no scientist would object to the elimination of the ozone, since more raw solar energy would only mean a welcome increase in organized complexity (a hastening of the alleged evolutionary process, as it were) in the world as we know it.
No, we know that raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy. In fact, by itself, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, first with and then without the addition of solar radiation). ]]
Same site link as above