Rem and Abaddon,
Let?s keep it civil, you b*st*rds! OK, we?ll go back to the point by point dissection, however, I'll not paste every single statement you made, in order to try to keep this less long winded.. My response is getting rather lengthy, so I?ll respond to your questions bit by bit ( many more posts to follow):
>>Something from nothing. The universe?s mass, whether you believe the big bang theory or not, had to come from somewhere. There are no plausible explanations for how this matter came into being as an atheist. That God created these things is the only plausible explanation.
Abaddon- Assertion. At this rate I?ll just not bother, I thought we?d got to the point where we could have a sensible discussion. As for ?plausible explanations?, are you saying you have no knowledge about the theories that exist in that regard? I assume you will either withdraw the comment or show where you feel current theories lack plausibility.
Rem-This is classic special pleading. You submit that something can never come from nothing, but in the same breath allow god to come from nothing. Probably the best (most honest) explanation here is "I don't know". Not positing a made up god as a non-explanation. You have violated Occham's Razor by complicating the explanation by increasing the number of variables. You added an unknown, undetectable, unprovable entity - God - into the equation
First, Theists do believe God always was, is and always will be. Call it special pleading, if you like. That belief is part and parcel of most Religion?s beliefs. I am a Christian, you are an atheist. You cannot prove there is no God (no, I?m not now, nor have I ever asked you to), I hope to prove there is one. I have faith that God created all things, you have faith that everything came into being accidentally. Yes, I know, you?ll quibble over the definition of evolution, yet life had to come from somewhere, somehow, so in that sense, the spontaneous appearance of life, no matter what you call it (abiogenesis, chemical evolution, biopoiesis, spontaneous generation, etc), is arguably correctly defined as part and parcel of evolution theory, it being an atheistic explanation you assert, or are you asserting that God created life, and it evolved from there? If you still want to argue that evolution per se only applies to biological change, I?d refer you to Dobzhansky, who stated: ?Evolution comprises all the stages of development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life (1967, 55:409).
Second,
it has never been demonstrated that something comes from nothing. S
omething nonliving cannot give rise to something living, that is to say, spontaneous generation cannot have occurred. Atheistic evolution (and, for the remainder of this document, It can be assumed I am referring to atheistic theories as to ?how things came to be?), in its entirety, is based on this principle. Is there any evidence that life arose from non-life? Since Rem and Abaddon are enamored of ?expert opinions?, I?ll continue doing likewise.(Incidentally, I challenge either of you to show where I have quoted out of context, as Abaddon implied). In their biology textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology, Simpson and Beck admitted that the spontaneous generation of life ?does not occur in any known case? (1965, p. 261). In his book, Until the Sun Dies, Robert Jastrow, the founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at
NASA
, stated: ?According to this story, every tree, every blade of grass, and every creature in the sea and on the land evolved out of one parent strand of molecular matter drifting lazily in a warm pool. What concrete evidence supports that remarkable theory of the origin of life? There is none (1977, p. 60).? In 1981, Sir Fred Hoyle stated in Nature magazine: ?The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts [zeros} after it.... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence (1981b, 294:148, {zeroes} mine.).? A decade later, in 1991, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe published in New Scientist an article dealing with the concept of biochemical evolution that allegedly produced the first life on Earth by chance processes: ?Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on the Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 10
40,000?
(91:415). In the October 1994 issue of Scientific American, Dr. Leslie Orgel authored an article titled ?The Origin of Life on Earth? in which he admitted: ?It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means....We proposed that
RNA
might well have come first and established what is now called the
RNA
world.... This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic
RNA
had two properties not evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis....The precise events giving rise to the
RNA
world remain unclear. As we have seen, investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the
RNA
world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future
(271:78,83).? So, evolutionists also must explain the origin of the complex
DNA/RNA
genetic code that is the basis of every living organism. Sir John Maddox, in the article, ?The Genesis Code by Numbers,? published in Nature: ?It was already clear that the genetic code is not merely an abstraction but the embodiment of life?s mechanisms; the consecutive triplets of nucleotides in
DNA
(called codons) are inherited but they also guide the construction of proteins. So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself (1994, 367:111).?
Atheistic evolution postulates that life arose from nonliving matter as a result of a purely naturalistic, completely mechanistic, and equally mysterious process on a prebiotic Earth. This process, whatever you call it, (abiogenesis, chemical evolution, biopoiesis, spontaneous generation, etc), is one of the foundational concepts of organic evolution. When G.A. Kerkut published his classic book, The Implications of Evolution, he listed the seven nonprovable assumptions upon which evolution is based. At the very top of that list was: ?The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred? (1960, p. 6). A naturalistic origin of life is absolutely essential to the beginning, and thus the continuation, of evolution. Again, one could try to separate the questions, as does Gould, who wrote: ?Evolution is not the study of life?s ultimate origin as a path toward discerning its deepest meaning. Evolution, in fact, is not the study of origins at all. Even the more restricted (and scientifically permissible) question of life?s origin on our earth lies outside its domain. (This interesting problem, I suspect, falls primarily within the purview of chemistry and the physics of self-organizing systems.) Evolution studies the pathways and mechanisms of organic change following the origin of life (1987b, 96[10]:18, parenthetical comments in original).
So Gould and many other evolution proponents attempt to distance themselves from the problem presented by the obvious fact that if something cannot live, it obviously cannot evolve. What were the naturalistic origins of life on Earth? How did something nonliving give rise to something living? A fundamental law of biology is the law of biogenesis, set forth many years ago to dictate what both theory and experimental evidence showed to be true among living organisms: that life comes only from preceding life, and perpetuates itself by reproducing only its own kind or type. As David Kirk correctly remarked: ?By the end of the nineteenth century there was general agreement that life cannot arise from the nonliving under conditions that now exist upon our planet. The dictum ?All life from preexisting life? became the dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent (1975, p. 7).
The experiments that formed the ultimate basis of this law were first carried out by the likes of Francesco Redi (1688) and Lazarro Spallanzani (1799) in Italy, Louis Pasteur (1860) in France, and Rudolph Virchow (1858) in Germany. It was Virchow who documented that cells do not arise from amorphous matter, but instead come only from preexisting cells. The Encyclopaedia Britannica stated concerning Virchow that ?His aphorism ?omnis cellula e cellula? (every cell arises from a preexisting cell) ranks with Pasteur?s ?omne vivum e vivo? (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology? (see Ackerknect, 1973, p. 35).
Down through the centuries, countless thousands of scientists in various disciplines have established the law of biogenesis as just that?a scientific law stating that life comes only from preexisting life and that of its kind. Interestingly, the law of biogenesis was firmly established in science long before the contrivance of modern evolutionary theories. Also of considerable interest is the fact that students are consistently taught in high school and college biology classes the tremendous impact of, for example, Pasteur?s work on the false concept of spontaneous generation. Students are given, in great detail, the historical scenario of how Pasteur triumphed over ?mythology? and provided science ?its finest hour? as he discredited the then-popular concept of spontaneous generation. Then, with almost the next breath, those same students are informed by their professor that evolution is supposed to have started via spontaneous generation.
This point may have escaped some students, but it has not been lost on me, or many evolutionary scholars, who confess to having some difficulty with the problem posed by the law of biogenesis. Simpson and Beck, in their biology textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology, stated that ?...there is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell? (1965, p 144). Martin A. Moe, in the December 1981 issue of Science Digest, stated: ?A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life, that the nucleus governs the cell through the molecular mechanisms of deoxyribonucleic acid (
DNA
) and that the amount of
DNA
and its structure determine not only the nature of the species but also the characteristics of individuals (p. 36). Creationists, like me, certainly agree. R.L. Wysong, in his book, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, commented: ?The creationist is quick to remind evolutionists that biopoiesis and evolution describe events that stand in stark naked contradiction to an established law. The law of biogenesis says life arises only from preexisting life, biopoiesis says life sprang from dead chemicals; evolution states that life forms give rise to new, improved and different life forms, the law of biogenesis says that kinds only reproduce their own kinds. Evolutionists are not oblivious to this law. They simply question it. They say that spontaneous generation was disproved under the conditions of the experimental models of Pasteur, Redi, and Spallanzani. This, they contend, does not preclude the spontaneous formation of life under different conditions. To this, the creationist replies that even given the artificial conditions and intelligent maneuverings of biopoiesis experiments, life has still not ?spontaneously generated.? ...Until such a time as life is observed to spontaneously generate, the creationist insists the law of biogenesis stands! (1976, pp. 182,185). That sums up my, and many other creationists feelings quite well.
Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity
, Moore and Slusher: ?Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis.? In a footnote, the authors stated further: ?Some scientists call this a superlaw, or a law about laws. Regardless of terminology, biogenesis has the highest rank in these levels of generalization? (1974, p. 74.).
Has the law of biogenesis been disproved? Nope, every piece of available scientific evidence still supports the basic concept that life arises only from preexisting life. Is biogenesis no longer an ?actual regularity in nature? Nope, every piece of available scientific information we possess shows that it is, in fact, just that, an actual regularity in nature. Has biogenesis somehow ceased being experimentally reproducible? Nope. Why, then, do evolutionists seemingly ignore this important law? The answer, it would seem, is obvious. If evolutionists accept biogenesis as a law, an actual regularity in nature, how could evolution ever get started? Biogenesis (the law of biogenesis) represents the complete undoing of evolutionary theory from the ground floor up. Little wonder, then, that some modern-day evolutionists, and their laity, like Abaddon, Rem, and drwtsn, have ignored the implications of the law of biogenesis.
Third, not only is the inability of how to get life started a serious stumbling block for atheistic evolutionists, but even the where of this supposed happening is nothing more than pure conjecture. (I won?t bring up the outlandish ?life came from outer space? theories unless you bring them up. I trust you know how easily those theories are dismembered.) Evolutionists (such as Gould) are fond of saying that there is no controversy over the fact of evolution; it is only the ?how? about which they disagree. They cannot even agree on the ?where.?
>>Experiments thus far have done nothing but show that mutation, subspecies, polyploidy, and hybrids can be produced in the laboratory, as in nature. But generation of new species has never occurred in the lab or in nature, let alone new Genera, Families, or Orders. So there is no real ?proof? of the theory of evolution. It remains a popular opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Calling it a ?theory? is a stretch, indeed.
Well, species is generally defined as a population that is separated to the point that they no longer breed with the parent population. This has been observed both in nature and in the laboratory.
If that is how you define species, so be it. I?ve been through this with drwtsn before:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/67808/1059007/post.ashx#1059007
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/67808/1059031/post.ashx#1059031
If you'd like to argue this further, using your definition of "species", let me know, I'll be glad to destroy that argument as well.
Evolution is based on the same foundation of evidence as any other historical science, such as plate techtonics.
Not so- plate tectonics is easy to replicate in a laboratory. Evolution cannot be replicated in a laboratory, or in nature, simply because it never happens. Unlike evolution, plate tectonics is based on sound scientific principles, and passes the test of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. T
he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multi-cellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
The subject of thermodynamics involves the movement of energy and the conversion of one form of energy into another. Thermodynamics, as a field of study, is important for several reasons, not the least of which is that it acts as a ?unifying? factor for all of the exact sciences, since energy is required for all natural processes (see Crawford, 1963, p. 1). It is this fact, that all natural processes require energy, that makes thermodynamics of special interest. Consider, for example, Sir Julian Huxley?s now-famous definition of evolution: ?Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution?a single process of self-transformation (1955, p. 278). Sidney Fox, who pioneered much of the work regarding the ?origin of life? in evolutionary scenarios, has noted that ?evolution, however, has put together the smallest components; it has proceeded from the simple to the complex? (1971, 49[50]:46). The process of evolution requires tremendous quantities of energy, and many energy transformations from one form to another. So, the process of evolution requires energy in various forms, and thermodynamics is the study of energy movement and transformation. Therefore, the two fields bear a clear relationship. Scientific laws that govern thermodynamics also must govern evolution. The question that arises, then, is two-fold: (1) what do the laws of thermodynamics say; and (2) what regulatory processes or restrictions are imposed on evolution as a result of the laws of thermodynamics?
Clausius, Kelvin, and Thomson introduced the concepts which ultimately became known as the Second Law. Clausius went on to defined a quantity known as entropy?the energy per degree of absolute temperature that cannot be recovered as work. He thus was able to give succinct definitions of the first and second laws of thermodynamics in this form: according to the first law, the total amount of energy in nature is constant; according to the second law, the total amount of entropy in nature is increasing. Entropy represents a measure of the lost usefulness (i.e., randomness, disorderliness) of the system.
Basically the second law says three things: (a) systems will tend toward the most probable state; (b) systems will tend toward the most random state; and (c) systems will increase in entropy, where entropy is a measure of the unavailability of energy to do useful work (see Wysong, 1976, p. 241). In ?open? systems, energy may be lost to or gained from outside sources (i.e., the system is not self-contained). In ?closed? systems, no outside energy or other ?interference? is allowed (i.e., the system is self-contained).
Sir Arthur Eddington, the eminent British astronomer of the past generation, referred to the second law as ?time?s arrow,? because it regulated the direction of all material events in time. That is to say, since the Universe is considered to be a closed (isolated) system, and since as time goes forward usable energy becomes less and less available, eventually the Universe will experience a ?heat death??that point in time when there is no more energy available for use. As Richard Morris observed, ?The Second Law tells us that past and future look different; there will be more entropy in the future, and there was less entropy in the past? (1985, p. 121). Harold Blum seized upon Eddington?s phrase ?time?s arrow? and authored a book titled Time?s Arrow and Evolution, in which he noted that ?...all real processes tend to go toward a condition of greater probability.... Increase in randomness may be taken as a measure of direction in time.... The Second Law of thermodynamics predicts that a system left to itself will, in the course of time, go toward greater disorder? (1968, pp. 5,192,201). The First and Second Laws of thermodynamics know no exceptions, none, zero, zed, zilch. They are among the most secure generalizations of science.
Evolutionary writer Jeremy Rifkin, in his book, Entropy: A New World View, pointed out that ?the Entropy Law will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that it is the premier law of all science; Sir Arthur Eddington referred to it as the ?supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe? ? (1980, p. 6). Eddington also noted: ?[I]f your theory is found to be against the Second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation? (1930, p. 74). Isaac Asimov likewise observed that ?in any spontaneous process, entropy either does not change (under ideal cases) or it increases (in real cases). Forgetting the ideal, we can just take it for granted that, in the real world about us, entropy always increases? (1962, pp. 57-58, parenthetical items in orig.). Several years after making that statement, Dr. Asimov went on to comment that ?as far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, or increasing randomness, of running down? (1973, p. 76).
But what does all of this have to do with evolution? The fact is: the second law of thermodynamics strictly prohibits organic evolution. Evolutionists have attempted to downplay the problems in regard to thermodynamics and evolutionary theory. But the problems do exist, and are serious. All natural processes occur in a direction such that there is an increase in entropy (disorder, randomness). And natural processes tend to go spontaneously only one way. As King noted: ?This ?onewayness? appears to be a very fundamental characteristic of natural processes. The Second Law of thermodynamics epitomizes our experiences with respect to the direction taken by thermophysical processes? (1962, p. 78). In defining the second law (or any other natural process), we speak of ?spontaneous? processes, because any natural process is a spontaneously occurring one. Thermodynamically speaking, all isolated systems (and the Universe is accepted as an isolated system) proceed toward a state of equilibrium. That is to say, a system changes its state toward one in which the physical properties of the system are as uniform throughout as possible under prevailing conditions (King, p. 103). If the system is exposed to its surroundings, both the system and the surroundings will approach a state of equilibrium with each other. Natural processes proceed so that entropy increases. Movement toward a state of ?maximum entropy? (equilibrium) is the norm, not the exception.
The evolutionist has accepted, and thus is forced to defend, a concept which states that in a closed system (the Universe) in which the second law of thermodynamics is operating (with all systems ultimately proceeding toward randomness and disorder), naturally occurring, spontaneous processes produced the order and complexity seen throughout both the living and nonliving worlds. But as Emmett Williams correctly observed: ?The Second Law of thermodynamics is an empirical law, directly observable in nature and in experimentation. This law implies that the direction of all natural processes is toward states of disorder. From the standpoint of statistics, natural operations proceed in a direction of greatest probability. The most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves (1981, p. 19). Isaac Asimov stated: ?Another way of stating the Second Law then is ?The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!? Viewed that way we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself?and that is what the Second Law is all about (1970, p. 6). Every particle, every atom in every part of the natural Universe, as far as scientists have been able to determine, is subject to this natural tendency. It is equally as obvious, however, that there is no tendency on the part of matter to spontaneously and naturally organize itself from nonliving antecedents into living organisms, which then transform themselves to higher levels of complexity. As Gish stated: ?Let us now go back and consider once again what evolutionists believe has occurred on this planet by spontaneous, naturally occurring processes. Simple gases, such as methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor, have transformed themselves in the presence of highly destructive energy sources, such as ultraviolet light and electrical discharges, into incredibly complex living cells. According to evolutionists, this was a progressive process that inexorably transformed matter to higher and higher levels of organization until finally the living cell arose, the most complex, the most unstable arrangement of matter in the universe... (Gish, 1981, p. 70). The obvious question then becomes, ?what process (or processes) could, in light of the second law of thermodynamics, be responsible for matter naturally, spontaneously organizing itself into living organisms as we see them today??
Evolutionists, of course, suggest the Earth is an ?open system,? and thus partakes of the immense amounts of energy coming in from the Sun. In their view, it is this energy that ultimately is responsible for matter organizing itself into living forms. Given that immense energy, matter could ?circumvent? the second law and spontaneously organize itself. lol. In fact, we are being asked to believe that this is exactly what happened. Evolutionists must seek refuge in the ?open system? argument, because it is the only option they have left. The formal statement of the second law would immediately be the downfall of evolutionary theory if accepted at face value since, according to the second law, entropy (randomness, disorderliness) always tends to increase in closed systems. And the Universe (so far as we are aware) is a closed system. Scientifically speaking, then, evolution would be plainly impossible, as it requires exactly the opposite of what the second law states is actually happening in nature. The evolutionist says: ?But the Earth is an ?open system? and the second law does not apply to open systems that have energy supplied from an outside source. It is this ?outside energy from the Sun? that causes evolution to occur.?
It is not creationists who ignore physical and chemical laws. Creationists continually point out that the second law applies to open systems as well, and even has mathematical constructs to apply to such systems (see Morris and Parker, 1987, pp. 205ff.). Evolutionist John Ross of Harvard plainly stated the matter in a letter to the editor of Chemical and Engineering News when he wrote: ?...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 (1980, p. 40).
Evolutionists boldly (and correctly) assert that ?the Earth is an open system.? Yet even they recognize that the second law of thermodynamics applies to the Earth, as an open system! Evidence for that is all around them. Energy supplies (coal, natural gas, oil, etc.) constantly are being depleted; animals and people die; decay is ubiquitous; etc. Entropy increases at every turn. Furthermore, as far as the Earth itself is concerned, every real system is an open system. There are no ?closed systems? in nature (except the Universe itself). Emil Borel, the Swiss scientist and mathematician established this years ago. Speaking of Dr. Borel?s efforts in this regard, Harvard astronomer David Layzer commented: ?Borel showed that no finite physical system can be considered closed? (1975, 223:56). But you can bathe the Earth with energy from the Sun day in and day out, and it will not cause evolution to occur because, while energy from the Sun is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition. There are other factors involved besides just the need for energy. It is those conditions that evolutionists ignore and on which they are confused. A discussion of this ?open system? argument, and the factors that prevent evolution from occurring even in such a system, is therefore in order.
So, since the Earth is an open system, could evolution somehow have ?sidestepped? the second law and occurred anyway? Nope. And some evolutionists will admit as much. Charles J. Smith, writing in Biosystems, recognized that a serious problem does exist in this area. He stated: ?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 open 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. 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 (1975, 1:259).
Merely having an energy field available to an open system
does not mean that the system will somehow automatically become organized or increase in complexity. George Gaylord Simpson and W.S. Beck stated in their biology textbook Life: An Introduction to Biology: ?We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life?s complex organization. We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed (1965, p. 466).
These two evolutionary scholars seemingly have stumbled onto the very point that the creationists have been making for years. Energy alone is not sufficient to cause the evolutionary process to occur! Energy is a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition. Raw, unbridled, uncontrolled energy alone (like a bull in a china shop) is more damaging than helpful. It destroys; it does not build. Raw, unbridled, uncontrolled solar energy is no different. In order to be constructive instead of destructive, it must be managed or controlled. Here is where the evolutionists have made a grievous error in their thinking. Their response that ?the Earth is an open system and has available to it the Sun?s energy that causes evolution to occur? confuses the quantity of energy (of which there is certainly enough) with the conversion of energy. The question is not whether there is enough energy from the Sun to sustain the evolutionary process; the question is how does the Sun?s energy cause, and eventually sustain, evolution? Or, put another way, the question is: what condition(s) must be satisfied to cause any finite system to advance to a higher degree of order, when the Universe as a whole is decreasing in order?
Simpson and Beck, as evolutionists, clearly stated what is necessary. They noted that a particular kind of work is required. They noted that it must follow specifications. And, they noted that it requires information on how to proceed. At this point, it would be appropriate to observe that these observations were made by evolutionists, not creationists. It may come as somewhat of a surprise to learn that these are the exact requirements that creationists have been suggesting for decades.
Now, there are at least two other conditions that are absolutely necessary. It is essential to have in place some kind of complex mechanism that can convert the available energy arriving from the Sun. The available environmental energy is of no avail unless it can be converted into the specific forms needed to organize and bond the components into the complex and ordered structure of the completed system. It is equally important to note that unless such a mechanism is available, environmental energy will be more likely to break down any structure(s) already present. Remember the statement of evolutionists Simpson and Beck that ?the work needed is particular work.? The energy must be converted into specific forms. That requires an energy conversion mechanism of some sort (motor, membrane, etc.). In addition, there must be present a highly specific program to direct the growth and employ the converted energy. That is to say, the energy must be ?told? what to do, and how to do it, once it has been converted from its raw state into a usable form. Remember the statement of Simpson and Beck that the work ?must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.?
Link together all four of these criteria, and the necessary components become sufficient to perform the task. For example, in the case of a building, fossil fuels and human labor operate numerous complex electrical and mechanical devices used to erect the structure. But, this is accomplished according to an architect?s blueprint. The energy is available; the system is ?open?; the energy conversion systems are present; and the specific program (blueprint) directs the ongoing construction.
Transfer that into the living world of plants. The process of photosynthesis, which is so complex that even today we do not fully understand it, converts sunlight into the building of the plant?s structure. Energy, air, water, sunlight, and other factors work together to produce the plant. The energy (sunlight) is available; the system is ?open?; the energy conversion system (photosynthesis) is present; and the specific program (
DNA
) directs the ongoing ?construction.?
Or, transfer that into the living world of animals or humans. In both animals and humans, numerous complex mechanisms (digestion, circulatory system, respiratory system, etc.) combine efforts to transform food into body structure, and into energy to maintain that structure. The energy (sunlight for the food; food for the body) is available; the system is ?open?; the energy conversion system (digestion and all it entails) is present; and the specific program (
DNA
with its multifarious systems of the Krebs cycle, the Cytochrome C cycle, etc.) directs the ongoing ?construction? in conjunction with the organelles of each cell. And so on.
To simply repeat the phrase that evolution can occur because ?the Earth is an open system? ignores the fact that all four of these criteria are necessary in order for evolution to have sufficient cause to occur. The evolutionary process, if it did indeed exist, would be by far the greatest growth process of all. If a specific directing program and energy conversion mechanism are essential for all lesser growth processes, then surely an infinitely more complex program and more specific energy conversion system would be required for the beginning and continued success of evolution. Every stage in organic evolution would represent an immense and unprecedented increase in complexity (remember Huxley?s definition?) of a living system, and therefore (according to the list established by Simpson and Beck) would require all four criteria?not just raw, uncontrolled energy and an ?open system.?
Where, in the evolutionary scheme of things, are the directing program and energy conversion mechanisms?
Therein lies ?one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology,? to use the evolutionist?s own words. Where in the Universe does one find a plan (a directing program) that sets forth how to organize random particles into particular people? And where does one find the marvelous motor or membrane that converts the continual flow of solar radiant energy arriving here on the Earth into the work of building chemical elements into self-replicating cellular systems, or of organizing populations of single-celled organisms into populations of humans over vast periods of supposed geologic time?
One more point on this matter- evolutionists, grasping at straws to protect their religion, from being exposed as a fairy tale by the the second law of thermodynamics , have stated that mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts. Evolutionist Boyce Rensberger tried this same approach in an article (?How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution?) he wrote for the January 8, 1997 issue of the Washington Post. His statement was: If the Second Law truly prohibited local emergence of increased order, there would be no ice cubes. The greater orderliness of water molecules in ice crystals than in the liquid state is purchased with the expenditure of energy at the generator that made the electricity to run the freezer. And that makes it legal under the Second Law?
Physical chemist Jonathan Sarfati, in a response to Rensberger titled ?The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics,? completely demolished arguments such as Rensberger?s when he noted: "An energy source is not enough to produce the specified complexity of life. The energy must be directed in some way. The ice cubes of his example would not form if the electrical energy was just wired into liquid water! Instead, we would get lots of heat, and the water breaking up into simpler components, hydrogen and oxygen. The ice example is thermodynamically irrelevant to the origin of life. When ice freezes, it releases heat energy into the environment. This causes an entropy increase in the surroundings. If the temperature is low enough, this entropy increase is greater than the loss of entropy in forming the crystal. But the formation of proteins and nucleic acids from amino acids and nucleotides not only lowers their entropy, but it removes heat energy (and entropy) from their surroundings. Thus ordinary amino acids and nucleotides will not spontaneously form proteins and nucleic acids at any temperature. Rensberger also fails to distinguish between order and complexity. Crystals are ordered; life is complex. To illustrate: a periodic (repeating) signal, e.g.
ABABABABABAB
, is an example of order. However, it carries little information: only ?
AB
? and ?print 6 times.? A crystal is analogous to that sequence; it is a regular, repeating network of atoms. Like that sequence, a crystal contains little information: the co-ordinates of a few atoms (i.e. those which make up the unit cell), and instructions ?more of the same? x times. If a crystal is broken, smaller but otherwise identical crystals result. Conversely, breaking proteins,
DNA
or living structures results in destruction, because the information in them is greater than in their parts.
A crystal forms because this regular arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased.
Random signals, e.g.
WEKJHDF BK LKGJUES KIYFV NBUY
, are not ordered, but complex. But a random signal contains no useful information. A non-random aperiodic (non-repeating) signal?specified complexity?e.g. ?I love you? may carry useful information. However, it would be useless unless the receiver of the information understood the English language convention. The amorous thoughts have no relationship to that letter sequence apart from the agreed language convention. The language convention is imposed onto the letter sequence.
Proteins and
DNA
are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents. The sequences of
DNA
and proteins must be imposed from outside by some intelligent process. Proteins are coded in
DNA
, and the
DNA
code comes from pre-existing codes, not by random processes.
Many scientific experiments show that when their building blocks are simply mixed and chemically combined, a random sequence results. To make a protein, scientists need to add one unit at a time, and each unit requires a number of chemical steps to ensure that the wrong type of reaction doesn?t occur. The same goes for preparing a
DNA
strand in a correct sequence?.
Even the simplest known self-reproducing life form (Mycoplasma) has 482 genes, and it must parasitize more complex organisms to obtain the building blocks it cannot manufacture itself. The simplest organism that could exist in theory would need at least 256 genes, and it?s doubtful whether it could survive "(2002b)
In an article titled ?Some Thermodynamics Criticisms?and Answers,? creationist Carl Wieland addressed this very point in response to an evolutionary critic.
Again, we now discuss this in terms of information?. Break a crystal and you just get smaller crystals; break a protein and you don?t simply get a smaller protein, rather you lose the function completely. This is the equivalent of saying that the crystal has low information content that is simply repeated, while the protein molecule can?t be constructed simply by repetition, because there is no chemical tendency for amino acids to align in specific ways during polymerization. Those who manufacture proteins know that they have to add one amino acid at a time, and each addition has about 90 chemical steps involved (2002).
The three authors of a critically acclaimed book on chemical evolution, The Mystery of Life?s Origin, took great pains (and correctly so) to distinguish between order and specified complexity, reserving the former for low-information symmetrical structures such as crystals, and the latter for the high-information structures such as those in living things (see Thaxton, et al., 1984). Anti-creationists like Rensberger , Abaddon, and Rem quite frequently confuse order (repetitive, low information) with specified complexity (non-repetitive, high information). Creationists such as myself know better.
Gordon J. Van Wylen and Richard Sonntag, in their university textbook, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, at the end of the chapter dealing with the second law of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy, concluded as follows:
"Quite obviously it is impossible to give conclusive answers to these questions on the basis of the Second Law of thermodynamics alone. However, we see the Second Law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe "(1985, pp. 232-233).
With this conclusion Creationists are in full agreement. It is a conclusion drawn from the scientific facts of the matter.
Love_Truth- back to work.
P.S.- Thanks to Apologetics Press and the internet in general for the quotes and analysis that expose the religion of atheism for the crock of shite that it is! What a fairy tale for grown-ups! Phoooey!
