Evolution 2.0 at Penn State University November 12, 2018

Where Did Life Come From?

#1 Question in the History of the Universe

Engineer offers $5 Million Prize

Perry Marshall at Penn State University’s Department of Electrical Engineering

Monday November 12, 1PM

Hub-Robeson Center, 2nd Floor – Room 233A/B, University Park, PA 16802

MAP    BUILDING FLOOR PLAN

(Parking available at the HUB Parking Deck)

What does Electrical Engineering tell us about life’s origin? A lot! On Monday November 12, Entrepreneur, Author and EE Perry Marshall presents: DNA and the Genetic Code through the eyes of a communication engineer.

Perry grew up in a conservative Christian community; he was taught Young Earth Creationism in church. But when a crisis forced him to question everything, he applied Electrical Engineering to the problem.

This revealed a world of discoveries he couldn’t have imagined… and engineering served him well. Cells employ digital code, error correction, information processing and control systems.

These parallel and supersede human-engineered systems. One blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of human technology.

This led him to organize a $5 million technology prize for Origin of Life and Artificial Intelligence, with judges from Harvard, Oxford and MIT. The prize was featured in IEEE Spectrum and is based on the discoveries of Claude Shannon, the legendary EE from Bell Labs who pioneered Information Theory.

Perry’s bestseller Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design brings fresh eyes to the 150-year old evolution debate. Bill Gates and the founders of Google revolutionized software and the web through their status as outsiders; similarly, Perry harnesses a communication engineer’s outsider’s point of view to reveal a century of unrecognized research and discoveries.

At Penn State, Perry will explore new frontiers of science research. He raises new questions that confront us in Artificial Intelligence and Genetic Engineering today.

Where did life come from? What happens if we crack the code? Find out at Penn State November 12.

Penn State University

Department of Electrical Engineering

Monday November 12, 1PM

Room 233AB Hub Building

11 Responses

  1. Daniel Missak says:

    Hey Perry, you have been very encouraging and helpful to read when I talk to my friends about the existence of God. One of my friends sent me this message and I wasn’t really sure how to respond – any ideas?

    “a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy” DNA isn’t symbols, letters or figures, it’s just a reaction. By comparing DNA you can actually see which animals and plants are closely related to each other and which ones they are descended from, which really removes any lingering doubt about all animals and plants being created at the same time. As for the claims about a language, if a designed language were to be used in DNA the four nucleobases Guanine, Adenine, Thymine and Cytosine, which pair up with each other, would be in use throughout the cell. However they are not, in RNA the Thymine is replaced with Uracil

    • If you search “DNA code” on this website you’ll find all the ammo you could ever need. Start here: http://evo2.org/dna-atheists/dna-code/

      I’ve built a $5 million prize on this definition with judges from Harvard, Oxford and MIT.

      • Daniel Missak says:

        Thanks for the suggestion. I have been sending him LOTS of excerpts from that website (which has proved to be very helpful so I appreciate the obvious hard work!) but he still continues to deny it. For example, when I sent him the diagrams at the beginning of the website, he said, “Those diagrams simplify a complex issue to the point of basic comprehension. Those diagrams are how we understand how the world works – but it needs to be recognised that the biological and chemical world works in a complete tangent to how our definitions of code, theories of transmission work. It is prudent to apply our understanding of foreign systems to the understanding of the human body.” Even after sending him that excerpt from Yockey about how they were not just analogies or symbols, he still continued to deny it, saying things like, “Ok but a code doesn’t equal intelligent design, it’s a layman term to make it more simplistic.” I’d appreciate any help or, even if you’re busy, just that you would remember him in your prayers. Thanks for taking your time to read this!

  2. Mark Hugo says:

    Perry: I’m just finishing up “The Book”. (Maybe as a significant contribution to Humanity and Literature, as the “Letters of Paul”.) Just as the “religionists” of the strict Darwin camp, scream and holler when they are faced with having to “work things out” with reality, and data..so do the straight laced, “God Created all in 7 Days, and the Geneologies give us (take your pick), 6000, 20,000 or 32,000 years old for the Earth, I my self have found data and experiments which may throw “all camps” into complete chaos!

    In the summer of 2005 I went on a Church Choir trip to Ukraine. It was 2 weeks long. I was able to squeeze another week out of the visit and spend time with a group which called itself, “Proton21”.

    http://proton-21.com.ua/publ/Booklet_en.pdf

    This short, concise PDF gives you an overview of the results of their work.

    In brief, by doing 5 Nanosecond, 200,000 Volt, 500,000 ampere discharges between small, specially shaped Cu electrodes, they obtain a multitude of nuclear transmutations. Enough, when measuring the “amounts” of the new elements (the Cu Alloy is 99.9943% pure, the other 0.0053% ‘impurities’ are well known and do NOT account for the “created” elements which are observed) are such that the “conversion” energy works out to less than 238. They run Auger spectrum on their samples and come up with spectra that MATCH the “hypothetical” for the observed masses. (CAMECA Mass Spec devices.)

    I have a couple other items to post..but I always fear an “inconvenient loss of typing” in these situations, so I will post another write up in a separate post.

    • Mark,

      I’m really happy that you like the book. Thank you. Enjoy the remainder. Regarding dating methods, I’m far from expert on most approaches. I’ve had numerous other discussions on this blog about the age of the universe and the speed of light, though, and I’m definitively of the opinion that the speed of light shows the universe to be very very old.

  3. Mark Hugo says:

    The second resource I would hope you’d look at is this:

    http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

    This article is called, “Dr. Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery”. It is about this –

    “When this shy paleontologist found soft, fresh-looking tissue inside a T. rex femur, she erased a line between past and present. Then all hell broke loose.

    Ever since Mary Higby Schweitzer peeked inside the fractured thighbone of a Tyrannosaurus rex, the introverted scientist’s life hasn’t been the same. Neither has the field of paleontology.”

    It is fascinating to note that although the article is very detailed, and the “discovery” and its technical details are laid out very cleanly and explicitly, the real REASON this “discovery” is “dangerous” is NEVER ADDRESSED.

    I WILL address it now. Having worked in Nuclear power for 21 years, having spent a year on contract, working for a local Pace-Maker company (Guidant) finishing up a report on Environmental Radiation effects on Semi-conductors.. I am completely versed in all known sources of “ionizing” radiation in our environment. As such, I can estimate (on the 500 Mill-rem background we all get, from Cosmic and built into our “materials of construction and life”) that the max age for those bones, to still have recognizable DNA (organic) molecules in them, would be 500,000 years.

    “Geological Dating” gives the T-Rex as 75,000,000 years. Can you imagine making a 150:1 error in an Engineering calculation? (Hint: Job loss..demotions, accusations of incompetence..) Ergo, this is a “DANGEROUS” discovery for many!

  4. Mark Hugo says:

    There is a “radical” British theoretical physicist, Julian Barbour, whose book, “The End of Time”, eloquently outlines his thesis that “without matter, there is no time”.

    A 50 page summation of the work is given here:

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0103055.pdf

    Just as you, Perry, do an elegant job of “summarizing” your contentions, I will try to do that for Dr. Barbour’s thesis. (Yes, he does have a Phd in Theoretical Physics, NO, he’s never worked at a lab facility…Yes, indeed, it found that by using his incredible facility at LANGUAGES, he’s earned a living doing “technical translation work” for almost 40 years!!!)

    In brief, prior to the “Big Bang”, one cannot talk about TIME, as we know it..there WAS NO TIME! (Difficult to grasp I know, we live and DIE in time.)

    When the BIG BANG occurred, although he dances around this conclusion, the “time” that it took to DISTRIBUTE the matter in the universe, was…in the way we think, “instantaneous”. (He clearly does NOT LIKE THIS CONCLUSION coming from his own theory.)

    Now as to the TIME for “globs of matter” to condense, form galaxies, stars, etc., that may be more definable, base on “known” physics. However, there IS a real bug-a-boo sitting in the heart of this work. Do you remember the “bending of light” around the Sun (the famous “Einstein Proof”.??? Well, according to Barbour..that is NOT due to the “structure of space being warped”, but rather the TIME METRIC being effected by the mass of the Sun.

    In point of fact, while the “speed of light” may appear to US to be invariant, within our galaxy, it may (because of the lack of matter between galaxies) be quite different in the space between galaxies.

    Thus the TRUE distances between galaxies may not be known until the nature of this connection between matter and time is known.

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *