Now it’s time to tackle Darwin and evolution and the shortsightedness of the evolutionists. Just as a warning, this post will be heavy in science, so it’ll be annotated and full of jargon. I’ll link to “How Stuff Works” and “Wikipedia” when I can.
Now you should be familiar with the theory of evolution from your schooling. Essentially the idea is all life started from a single point on the planet and gradually evolved, basd upon changing plaentary conditions, to give the various forms of complex life found on the planet today.
Scientists have claimed to have “obvserved” evolution in laboratories, but there’s a fine line between evolution and mutation. Mutation is a genetic anomaly that is forced upon individuals of a species by their environment or random process. Evolution is a species-wide series of mutations which move the species to a functionality that better suits their current environment. Evolution is a positive mutuation as well. It would be hard to state that a man who has a mutation which leaves him with a deformed arm is a positive step towards evolution.
The basis is Darwin’s idea that species conform to their surroundings and that all creatures gradually mutated into the species that occupy the planet.
Darwinists claim that this disputes the existence of God, as it seems to contradict the creation story of spontaneous genesis. However, if it does dispute the existence of God, the Darwinists
do not provide information to explain the anomalies of evolution and, most importantly, how life started on the planet.
Now, I want to say that Darwinists are simply people who believe evolution disproves all religion. There are many people out there who can coexist with the idea that there was evolution and God exists.
What bothers me about the Darwinists is their acceptance of religion without critical application. In fact, the abject belief in evolution as what really occurred on the planet ignores several flaws in the theory.
Flaw #1: Evolution happens so slowly it’s nearly impossible to observe in a laboratory setting. Because evolution is subtle, genetic codes of several generations of animals must be tracked and compared over their lifetime. Without experimentation or detailed observation to verify the theory, it’s more of an idea than actual fact. Humans, for example, have plenty of similar-looking ancestors, but there is no definitive proof that they evolved into what we are today. That’s not to say it didn’t happen, just that evidence supporting it isn’t there.
Flaw #2: Some species are so different it’s hard to place a common ancestor. Primates, for example, are different that most other creatures. Other creatures have litters whereas humans give singular births. In addtion, the larger brains of the higher-order primates are very large. Given that the larger brains take primates longer to reach maturity than other species, it’s hard to say it’s a positive mutation set to take advantage of the local environment. The evolution of advanced intelligence and tool-use also seems odd as it took 4 billion years to produce on species that could do such things.
Flaw #3: This and flaw #4 are the biggest problems with evolution. If we are to believe the species evolved from a common ancestor, the question of “where did that ancestor come from?” is never answered.
There are two prevailing theories which explain where life started from– it started on Earth, or it came from outer space. As the latter is a bit far-fetched, and it also has an origin-point problem, the best pursuit would be that of spontaneogenesis on Earth.
But how did life start on Earth? What is the simplest life form that exists? The ameoba? Bacterium? Actually, the virus is probably the smallest, but because it’s a parasitic life form, it’s unlikely to be the first life form. As animals need a prey of some sort, be it plant or animal, and plants need an environmental source of food, a plant life form would be the most logical to develop.
What does it take to be the first life form on earth? Well, it has to conform to the surface temperatures and likely be water borne in some way. If it is atmospherically active, it should also be a nitrogen-fixer. That is, due to the lack of oxygen, the first life forms had to scavenge something else. As methane, nitrogen and carbon dioxide were the prevalent chemicals in the early Earth atmosphere (with nitrogen being the most abundant), the life form must have had a very different biological system than what lives on the planet now. The question now becomes– what was it made of?
First, there must be genetic identifiers– DNA. The strand of early life could be significantly shorter than most. Even so, it must have had a certain number of base pairs per chromosome to give replicating information to its progeny. So we’re looking at two inertwining carbon backbones with interspersed amino acids in their chains. If there’s more than one chromosome, then there’s even more of these complex molecules to deal with. Throw in the messenger RNA, plasma, internal structure and cell membrane, this is a highly-organized system that requires a truckload of carbon arranged into preset structures. The amino acids involved were probably simple, and may have even come from space & comet impacts, but the “where they come from” question isn’t nearly as important as “how could they have stayed in one place long enough, with sufficient concentrations, to spontaneously organize into life forms?”
The biggest problem is thermodynamics. Entropy is the tendency for all things in the universe to become disorganized species. The more a reaction adds to the randomness of the universe, the more it favors entropy. Explosives, for examples, are solids that give off a tremendous amount of entropy when they explode. Typical explosives transmute their solid/liquid forms into gas, which increases the local pressure.. Any time a gas is involved, the system becomes far less organized and more random, which means it favors entropy. Any time a system is more organized, it means it disfavors entropy.
Now, think about the “primordial soup” that generated the first life forms. For all of those chemicals to organize, there must have one wild coincidence. Think about the cell membrane. All of those lipids organizing in a cell structure, capturing the DNA which had formed earlier, and then finding enough nearby material to reproduce (divide)? Not to mention it had to develop a method to consume local resources. Organization of life, even on that small of a scale, really pushes entropy to the forefront of any chemical reaction.
The Gibbs Free Energy diagram, or equation, is a fine example of how entropy dominates the universe. If you look at the equation, it seems pretty simple. H is entropy, the energy of the system (ether endothermic or exothermic). G is the “Gibbs Free Energy”, or the predictor to the spontaneity of the reaction. If delta (D) G is negative, it’s spontaneous. If not, it’s non-spontaneous. T is temperature (reported in Kelvin) and DS is entropy. So, the equation DG = DH – TDS. Now let’s simplify the equation. If DH is positive (endothermic) and TDS is negative (which makes the term a positive value because of the negative sign in front), that means DG is going to be positive, which means there is no self assembly. There can’t be because the thermodynamics tell us the system is not going to proceed on its own. Notice the T value. If T increases (the reaction is heated up), all it does is increase the TDS term and make it less likely to occur. If DH was negative and DS was positive, then the reaction would always be spontaneous (T is always positive, so the entropy value would always be negative because of the sign before TDS, so all DG values would be negative).
To summarize, when a reaction has a positive value for S (Entropy), the reaction will lean towards spontaneity. When a reaction has a negative value for S, the reaction will lean towards non-spontaneity. Bear in mind that a spontaneous reaction does not necessarily mean an instantaneous reaction. When iron rusts, it’s a spontaneous reaction, although it takes a while before the material is consumed.
Now look at what is necessary for the first cellular life to evolve on the planet:
- Long, complex organic molecules have to be formed. Lipids (for cell membranes) need to be made from long-chain carbon compounds, which weren’t all that prevalent in early Earth. There was plenty of methane and carbon dioxide, and volcanoes likely put out PAHs, but those molecules are not in lipid form. Something would have to convert them into long chain hydrocarbons. That means taking small, random gas particles and making them a “solid” compound. That’s a huge negative entropy value (and remember, that leads to non-spontaneity.) The PAHs could be reduced to plain cyclic hydrocarbons and broken down into lipids. The entropy loss here isn’t as bad as with the gases, and opening the rings gives a slight exothermic (DH) change, which may be a plus.
- The cell has to have internal structure formed. These are a variety of long-chain molecules that, again, would work against entropy. In addition, they have to have a function that works towards the life-function of the cell. Some sort of DNA would have to form as well, and that means base-pairs. Notice that oxygen is part of three of the base-pairs, and that’s significant as oxygen gas wasn’t prevalent in the atmosphere when life first formed. (However, water was abundant– it would have to be present for this cell to form.) What’s more interesting is the large amount of nitrogen in the base-pairs. It’s a hold-over from the reducing atmosphere of ancient Earth. Still, these bases had to link together to form DNA– something that’s anti-entropic.
- The cell would have to form a nucleus of its DNA parts. The entire reason the nucleus exists is to make sure the DNA molecules don’t start drifting apart. The nucleus exists if only for the reason to thwart entropy, so by its nature, it’s anti-entropic.
- Finally, all of these diverse organic molecules would have to assemble in one spot. Think about the size of a cell, now compare it to the surface area of the Earth. What’s the likelihood that all of these cell components would form together in one spot? Again, that shows a highly-organized system, something which does not lean towards spontaneity.
If you combine the reasoning of the Gibbs Free Energy equation with the known factors above, the value of S is huge– hundreds of kilojoules of energy. Because all of these systems work against entropy, the sign of entropy here would be negative, which means TDS would give a positive value. The only thing which would validate the system would be an enormous DH of cell and its component parts, it’s got to be a highly exothermic system.
So the formation of a DNA molecule has to be fantastically exothermic to overcome the entropy needed for the reaction. If the lipids formed from gas, they have a problem as well. In order for life to form independently on Earth, there had to be something that would overcome the entropy. And it’s something most Evolutionists haven’t given any thought to.