Science Says No To Evolution!

[ArtB]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics, a physical law that tells us that entropy always increases, is always true strictly because the tendency of masses of molecules to assemble themselves from states of low probability to states of ever increasing probability. Every system that is left to itself (i.e. not imposed upon by an intelligent being or beings) will eventually change toward a condition of maximum probability (sometimes paraphrased as; if you think things are mixed up now, just wait). This principle applies equally to information content of any system. This fact has great implications on the materialistic theory of evolution (i.e. common ancestry): nearly all states (e.g. arrangements) in which molecules can naturally self organize themselves into are meaningless and useless to the formation of the necessary structures required by all types of life’s organisms to have come into existence. Those states (e.g. arrangements) of molecules that are meaningful to (e.g. provide a necessary function for the existence of -) the diverse types of organism found on this planet are, by comparison, almost infinitely small. The logical conclusion is that the 2nd law demands that molecules will naturally arrange themselves into patterns that are unsuitable for life and for broad range evolution to occur. Therefore, scientifically speaking, the broad range concept of evolution, sometimes called macro-evolution or the General Theory of Evolution, that all organism extinct and extant share a common ancestor, is in violation of the 2nd Law and is thereby scientifically falsified. In academia very few will use the word ‘falsified’ as Evolution has become an untouchable Icon, the golden calf of the materialistic worldview.


The following are quotations from scientists who understand the 2nd law as derivative of the law of increasing probability, and with full application to open systems as well as isolated. Physicist Harold F Blum, “Perspectives in Evolution,” American Scientist, vol. 43 (October 1955), pp 595‑610. pp. 595-6
“A major consequence of the second law of thermodynamics is that all real processes go toward a condition of greater probability. The probability function generally used in thermodynamics is entropy…. Thus orderliness is associated with low entropy; randomness with high entropy…. The second law of thermodynamics says that left to itself any isolated system will go toward greater entropy, which also means toward greater randomness and greater likelihood.”

Sommerfeld, Arnold, Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, vol. V (New York: Academic Press, 1956), p. 155. (eq 10)
[where = entropy generated locally, s = entropy flux, e = mass density, = time rate of entropy change.]
“Equation (10) together with the inequality  = can be regarded as the differential formulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The statement in integral form, namely that the entropy in an isolated system cannot decrease, can be replaced by its corollary in differential form which asserts that the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not, and irrespective of whether the process under consideration is irreversible or not.”

Ross, John, “2nd Law of Thermodynamics,” Letter-to-the-Editor, Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58 (July 7, 1980), p. 40. Ross was at Harvard University. p. 40

“… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems….

“… There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”

Physicist Richard P. Feynman is consistent with Blum’s statement, explains entropy as the flow from order to disorder, from states of lower probability to states of higher probability.

He gives the example of filming two gases, a gas of white particles and a gas of black particles, in a container separated by a boundary. He calls this state highly ordered as all the black particles in the container are all on one side and all the white particles are on the other side. When the boundary is removed, the particles will mix together, order decreases and disorder increases. This is considered an irreversible process. But Feynman has an objection, if you play the film backwards, the particles separate and all the white particles go to one side of the container and the black particles go to the other side of the container, and not only that, but careful observation shows that no physical laws are broken, all the particles are moving at just the right speed and are forming just the right collisions at just the right angle for this to happen. Thus the process is reversible and, Feynman adds, so is all the fundamental laws of physics. So what is it that makes the natural mixing of the two gases irreversible? Feynman's answer is `probability'. The number of states (particle distribution) of disorder far outnumbers the number of states of order, so much so that it becomes unrealistic to expect reversibility. The gases are moving from states of very low probability to states of much higher probability, moving from order to disorder.

 

[ArtB]

Agreeing with Feynman, Physicist Tony Rothman, “The Seven Arrows of Time,” Discover, vol. 8 (February 1987), pp. 62-77.
p. 70
“In terms of confusion-to-understanding ratio, probably no concept in physics rates higher—or has caused more headaches—than entropy.”
p. 72
“The dilemma is easy to see. Take a liter of gasoline and burn it. According to thermodynamics, entropy increases irreversibly—the seventh arrow says there’s no way you can run the clock backward and reconstitute your liter of gasoline. But now look at the flame under a microscope. All the molecules obey Newton’s laws precisely, and so cannot be subject to an arrow of time. The microscopic events are all time-reversible, yet the macroscopic event—the burning—isn’t.”

The 2nd law is a central question for those who hold to spontaneous generation: Nobel Laureate, Biologists Christian De Duve, in his 1995 book `VitalDust', states that any and all scenarios for spontaneous generationmust be certain that each step of the process flows from lowerprobability to higher probability so as not to violate the 2nd law. Notice that De Duve is in agreement with Blum, Feynman, and Klein are in agreement that scientifically speaking, the 2nd law is true due to the principle that real physical processes flow from lower probability to higher probability.

According to the eminent information theoretician & evolutionist Yockey: "An uninvited guest (Schroedinger, 1955; Du Nouy,1947; Prigogine, and Nicolis 1971; Gatlin, 1972; Prigogine, Nicolis & Babyloyantz, 1972; Volkenstein, 1973) at any discussion of the origin of life and evolution from the materialistic reductionist point of view, is the role of thermodynamic entropy and the 'heat death' of the universe which it predicts. The universe should in every way go from states which are less probable to those which are more probable. Therefore, hot bodies’ cool; energy is conserved but becomes less available to do work. According to this uninvited guest, the spontaneous generation of life is highly improbable ( Prigogine, Nicolis, and Babyloyantz, 1972).

The uninvited guest will not go away nor will the biological evidence to the contrary notwithstanding." The problem die-hard evolutionists have is that they know the second law is a fact and they KNOW evolution is a fact, therefore the two must be compatible. This forces them to believe the absurd, that order and specified complexity arises out of chaos, that nonsense generates sense, that information has arisen spontaneously within systems. This is contrary to what the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us. Victor F Weisskopf., “The Frontiers and Limits of Science,” American Scientist, vol. 65 (July-August 1977), pp. 405-411. Weisskopf is former head of the Department of Physics, MIT, President of American Academy of Arts & Science. p. 409

“The evolutionary history of the world, from the ‘big bang’ to the present universe, is a series of gradual steps from the simple to the complicated, from the unordered to the organized, from the formless gas of elementary particles to the morphic atoms and molecules, and further to the still more structured liquids and solids, and finally to the sophisticated living organisms. There is an obvious tendency of nature from disorder to order and organization. Is this tendency in contradiction to the famous second law of thermodynamics, which says that disorder must increase in nature? The law says that entropy, the measure of disorder, must grow in any natural system.”

Smith, Charles J., “Problems with Entropy in Biology,” Biosystems, vol. 1 (1975), pp. 259-265. p. 259
“The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter.
“… This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue.

“Professor Bertalanffy called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology. I would go further and include the problem of meaning and value.”

Bertalanffy became so disenchanted with Evolution because of its violations of science including the 2nd law that he stated: "The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria of HARD science has become dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds." Biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, as quoted by Huston Smith, 'The Post Modern Mind' (New York, Crossroads, 1982) p. 173

Physicist Lipson concurs with Bertalanffy, Lipson, H. S., “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, vol. 31 (May 1980), p. 138.
“It may be thought that [crystallization] is a simple analogue from which the principles of life may be developed. We know, however, that crystallization occurs because entropy S is not the deciding factor, internal energy U is also important. The quantity that must be minimized is the free energy (U-TS) and U is small for a crystal because the atoms are carefully packed together. As the temperature T increases, S becomes more important, and the crystal first becomes liquid (usually) and then gaseous.

“Therefore, if we wish to regard the birth of an animal as regulated by the principles of thermodynamics, we must believe that the developing arrangement of atoms is that of lowest internal energy. My mind boggles!

“If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? … I think, however, that we must … admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

I will conclude this series of posts on the 2nd law falsifies Evolution with an example of hard science that demonstrates the improbability of generation of new proteins necessary for life to have evolved from a single cell organism to all creatures extant and extinct. Again, this is strictly because of the principle that under-girds the 2nd Law, the flow of molecular states from low improbability to increasingly high probability. For those who may not know, the ability to substitute an amino acid for another amino acid in the protein sequence without losing function is known as "ambiguity". Hemoglobin is protein that has zero ambiguity, if one amino acid is changed, the result is deleterious. In 1967 there was a conference at Wistar where top evolutionists met to discuss the problems the 2nd law of thermodynamics presented to evolution, as well as other challenges to Darwinian evolution.

Dr. Murray Eden, Professor of electrical engineering at MIT presented this paper entitled, 'The Inadequacy of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory'. Eden demonstrated that if it required a mere six mutations to bring about an adaptive change, this would occur onlyonce in a billion years, but if two dozen genes were involved, this same change would require 10 billion years. He then showed that it would be unlikely for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by mutations in the DNA of the bacteria, E. Coli, in 5 billion years, and to get this desired result of one ordered pair of genes depended on a population of that organism which weighs 100 trillion tons, which would cover the entire earth with E. Coli to a depth of about one inch high. He concluded that in order for macroevolution to take place, it would be necessary to replace 'chance' with 'a new determinate feature', a new yet undiscovered natural law.

[In 1993, Time Magazine featured an article concerning evolution that stated that evolutionary scientist are still searching for this much needed 'organizing principle or natural law' that would enable evolution to occur naturally. So the search is still ongoing, and of course, such a law may not at all exist]. Dr. Eden then attacked Natural Selection as tautologous, and then added "Any principal criticism of current thoughts on evolutionary theory is directed to the strong use of the notion of 'randomness' in selection.The process of speciation by a random variation of properties in offspring is too imprecisely defined to be tested. When it is precisely defined, it becomes highly implausible."


Dr. Eden then went on to report extensive genetic data on hemoglobin. Hemoglobin contains two chains, alpha and beta, and evolutionists believe one type evolved first, and then it evolved into the other type. Dr. Eden explained that it would take a minimum of 120 point mutations to convert alpha to beta and that at least 34 of these mutations would require changing two or three nucleotides of the 140 residues in the chain. Yet, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result is highly deleterious to the organism. Nobel laureate, Dr George Wald, responded to Dr. Eden's comments on hemoglobin: " I took a little trouble to find whether a single change in amino acid in a hemoglobin is known that doesn't affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance. Do you know what I'm saying? ... One is hard put to find a single instance in which a change in one amino acid in sequence does not change markedly the properties." Since then, only about a dozen or two loci where you can replace an amino acid with another amino acid found in living beings, without destroying the 574 amino acids of a Hemoglobin's function, alpha and beta chains.


Dr. Wald also noted the enormous time required to establish a mutation throughout a population: "If you make a rough estimate..., it looks as if something of the order of 10 million years to establish a mutation in a population. That is, each of these single amino acid changes appears in individuals relatively frequently as pathology; but to establish one such change as a regular characteristic in a species seems to take something of the order of 10 million years."


Hubert Yockey, in 1978, did theoretical calculations to determine the information content of cytochrome C while allowing for ambiguity.Mr. Yockey based his calculations on phylogenetic sequence comparisons. His calculations revealed that an undirected search arriving at this a protein has a probability of occurrence of 1 in 10^65. Such a probability is certainly very damaging to any possibility of common ancestry being at all plausible. To counter this, a scientist with excellent mathematical skills, Mr. Ken Dill, using different assumptions than Yockey, arrived at a 1 in 10^15 probability of finding via an undirected search a protein molecule the size of cytochrome C, which under other reasonable assumptions may occur as frequently as once every 32 years.


Yockey's analysis had more support from studies on the actual studies on varying amino acids in cytochrome C, but this was inconclusive and evolutionists were clinging to the possibility that Dill's analysis may be correct. Hard experimental data was needed to resolve this issue and Sauer et.al. provided the solid empirical data which turned out to confirm Yockey's analysis. Robert T. Sauer and his M.I.T. team of biologists undertook the scientific research of substituting the 20 different types amino acids in two different proteins. upon each substitution, the protein sequence was reinserted into bacteria to be tested for function. They discovered that in some locations of the protein's amino acid chains, up to 15 different amino acids may be substituted while at other locations there was a tolerance of only a few, and yet other locations could not tolerate even one substitution of any other amino acid. One of the proteins they chose were the 92-residue lambda repressor. Sauer et. al. calculated that: "... there should be about 10^57 different allowed sequences fo the entire 92-residue domain. ... the calculation does indicate in a qualitative way the tremendous degeneracy in the information that does specifies a particular protein fold. Nevertheless, the estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the lambda repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 amino in 10^63, of the total possible 92 residue sequences." Sauer et. al. go on to highlight that Yockey (1978) had obtained a similar result for cytochrome C. Biologists R.T. Sauer, James U Bowie, John F.R. Olson, and Wendall A.Lim, 1989, 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Science's USA 86,2152-2156. and 1990, March 16, Science, 247; and, Olson and R.T.Sauer, 'Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics', 7:306 - 316, 1990.


This hard science is a striking confirmation of Yockey's theoretical Work. This is another very serious impediment to Evolution


In summing up, I quote creationists Professors Percival Davis(Ph.D., Life Sciences) and Dean Kenyon (Ph.D. Biology): "These calculations [Sauer's] showed that the odds of finding a folded protein are about 1/10^65, a striking confirmation of Yockey's calculations. It means all proteins that have been examined to date, either by comparison of analogous sequences from different species, have been seen to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide chasm of unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences. There are in fact no "stepping stones"! In other words, an undirected search will not hit upon any of the end protein sequences sought in the time allowed by the age of the universe. The various functional classes of proteins apparently are so isolated, they could not have risen from one another." (Of Pandas and People, 1993 edition).


The above sound science clearly reveals the impossibility of evolution ever occurring by random chance events.

The most scientific conclusion is: In the Beginning, God created all creatures, each according their body plan.

 

[Ryukil]

I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY, REEAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLY do not understand why Christians will go to such massive lengths to deal with evolution. It is patently obvious that evolution happened and happens. You can still be a Christian and believe in evolution. It's not worth turning people away from the faith because it has a reputation of being anti-science.
Just stop worrying about it so much. One day I hope that whether or not a Christian believes in evolution will be like pre-Trib vs. post-Trib, i.e., no one will care.

 

[ArtB]

I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY, REEAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLY do not understand why Christians will go to such massive lengths to deal with evolution. It is patently obvious that evolution happened and happens. You can still be a Christian and believe in evolution. It's not worth turning people away from the faith because it has a reputation of being anti-science.
Just stop worrying about it so much. One day I hope that whether or not a Christian believes in evolution will be like pre-Trib vs. post-Trib, i.e., no one will care.

Hey Ryuki, I earned 4 degrees to choose from for my final degree, Physics, Electrical Engineer, Math, and History. I prefer debating Professors, the good ones are honest about the science. In several debates on the internet with college students who argued against me, only to be corrected right then by their Professors for disagreeing with me. I also out-debated several professors who disagreed with me. But most Professors are honest as to the evidence for or against of evolution.

If you feel there is real good evidence of Macro-evolution, present it. I have no problem with micro-evolution within a species.

 

[SkyWriting]

I really.. do not understand why Christians will go to such massive lengths to deal with evolution. It is patently obvious that evolution happened and happens.

Science cannot recreate any past events. Part of evolution theory deals in Origins and is all fiction. The real part can be repeated and tested. If it's a story about the past, it's fiction. If it is laced with science facts, it's Science-Fiction.

 

[miamited]

I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY, REEAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLY do not understand why Christians will go to such massive lengths to deal with evolution. It is patently obvious that evolution happened and happens. You can still be a Christian and believe in evolution. It's not worth turning people away from the faith because it has a reputation of being anti-science.
Just stop worrying about it so much. One day I hope that whether or not a Christian believes in evolution will be like pre-Trib vs. post-Trib, i.e., no one will care.

Hi ryukil,

While I am fully willing to accept that it may be patently obvious to you, I hope that you will believe that it isn't so to me. My belief that is patently obvious to me is that God created this realm in 6 days about 6,000 years ago because it fits with who God is.

God created this realm of existence for the very and specific purpose of creating a place where man would live. It didn't take millions or billions of years for Him to create this realm and it didn't take millions or billions of years for man to exist in this realm.

As I understand the Scriptures, God set out to create a realm in which man could live. It was the ultimate purpose of His first words spoken to begin this realm of existence when He spoke the first words, "Let there be light." All of evolutionary and old age universe theories are based on man's knowledge and wisdom and I'm just not satisfied that the natural man can know, understand or explain the work of God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[hollyda]

[Redacted] -- Didn't realize this was posted in the Christians only part of the forum. My bad!

 

[SkyWriting]

[Redacted] -- Didn't realize this was posted in the Christians only part of the forum. My bad!

People who mind their manners usually have no problem.