Mikey Concession

Ringo was making a different and simpler point: your math must be informed by the mechanisms and associated probabilities by which elements and molecules combine. In other words, if you don't understand chemistry then your math will produce the wrong answers. To clarify further I'll comment on this: And it's something about chemistry that you happen to already know. That's all Ringo was saying, that you have to have chemical knowledge, too, not just math. Absent that knowledge one might be led to conclude that unknown and unseen forces are necessary to produce the complexity of life that exists today.--Percy

No, we don't know that. We know that many pathways do produce racemic mixtures. However, pathways that make use of catalysis can produce homochirality. Until you have investigated every possible pathway, you can not invoke a need for intelligence. There's no reason why a series of events can't add one protein at a time, without intentional intelligence. As I have often said, all intelligence can do is rearrange existing processes. It can not create new processes. Better, maybe. But what does "better" mean. You have to have intentions before one process can produce a "better" result than another. That doesn't mean that a series of random events can not produce the same result. All intelligence can do is influence the probability. I'm not arguing that intentional intelligence is not a good answer. I'm arguing that it is not necessary. But when the existence of that intelligence is unsubstantiated, it becomes a worse answer. It's analogous to saying, "No, it is not a good answer that Bigfoot cooked a well baked cake."

Actually, he has not. Sarfarti has a well developed ego, and makes a lot of claims, but he does not know biology at all. He is not a biochemist. He makes a lot of comments and writes about things he is not trained in, mostly inaccurately.Here is a review of his 'refuting evolution book'Jonathan SarfatiI have been on a forum which he was semi-active, and honestly, his technical knowledge isn't nearly as good as many people here.

Sarfati is and was a well-known liar and a fraud. Why was he even mentioned here?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I actually had some email exchanges with with Sarfati. He is either extremely ignorant of science outside of his own field or a liar for Jesus.

Safarti being ignorant, and a liar for Jesus is not mutually exclusive.