24
Aug
07

God Vs. Science, Part 2

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.

Advertisements

13 Responses to “God Vs. Science, Part 2”


  1. 1 Bobak
    August 27, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    OK, now prove through factual evidence the presence of the god Jesus claimed to exist…..

    I’d rather take the answer that makes more sense than the answer that makes none and has been responsible for far more evil than any other movement…look it up genius…

  2. 2 William
    October 22, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    The origin of your misguided and tortured reasoning – religion



  3. October 22, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    Great, you proven that we don’t undserstand the origin of life. But we already knew that.

    P.S. Neither do you.

  4. 4 docattheautopsy
    October 23, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    So, if you don’t understand the origin of life, how can you make fun of Intelligent Design proponents? It’s like saying “My imaginary answer is better than your imaginary answer!”

    Had you bothered to read part 1, you’d discover that I like the idea of Intelligent Design as a philosophy, but it has no scientific merit to it. I prefer the process of evolution. The statistical improbability of spontaneous generation of life on a planet is still a major stumbling block to the theory of evolution– beyond that, it works well.

  5. November 13, 2007 at 9:30 pm

    Did you haoppen to watch the PBS NOVA program on the intelligent design case in Dover, PA? It was absolutely stunning.

    It showed how under the intelligent design definition of what a scientific theory is, “psuedo sciences” like astrology can be considered “valid scientific theories” and how the proponents of intelligent design lied, committed perjury in an effort to mask intelligent design’s connection with religion. Also revealed was how defenders of science, ultimately including the judge in the case, received death threats from religious fanatics.

    It also shows how elegantly the sole scientific witness for intelligent design was debunked by his own cited reference.

    This program will be available for viewing on the PBS website by this weekend in its entirety. I suggest everyone who is a proponent of intelligent design should watch this.

    It backs up what I’ve been saying all along. Not to sound elitist, but the fact remains and is made unmistakably obvious in this documentary, those that do not accept the theory of evolution do not understand the science, and likely, do not understand what constitutes a ‘scientific theory.’ The case was a slam dunk.

    Debates such as these that involve science are fundamentally hampered by a basic lack of knowledge of those that participate. I am proud to see the teachers of Dover, some who are devote Christians, stand up for science in the classroom.

    Watch it. Here’s a preview:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/…tday_2007-11- 13

  6. 6 docattheautopsy
    November 13, 2007 at 10:23 pm

    Ugh, Willy. Do you even read what I type?

    Evolution is the best current theory for describing the evolution of life on earth. However, it’s not perfect, and it has fundamental problems, specifically with biogenesis.

    On the other hand, those proponents of Intelligent Design are attempting to insert it as science, when it is best reserved to the vaulted halls of cosmology.

  7. November 13, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    Your post seems to suggest the improbability of spontaneous biogenesis on this planet. Am I mistaken that this a suggestion of intelligent design? there had to be something that would overcome the entropy

    Something?

    Do you think panspermia is a possible explanation for biogenesis on Earth – considering it has been shown that bacteria are essentially immortal and can survive in a dormant state for hundreds of millions of years?

    (Refering to the study reported in the journal Nature 10/19/00 where 250 million year old Permian period bacteria that was found dormant inside salt crystals and successfully revived)

  8. 8 docattheautopsy
    November 13, 2007 at 11:38 pm

    “Something?”

    Yes. As in some catalyst, some type of system that would overcome the entropy. And if not on this planet (although primordial earth had all necessary components for spontaneogenesis) then somewhere else. But the problem of entropy persists, regardless of the origin. In fact, it becomes LESS likely if you start talking about null-gravity origins because of lack of fluidity that would originate cellular structure.

    It’s the chicken & the egg syndrome. Regardless of where the chicken came from, the question persists: where did the egg for the chicken come from?

    Hardcore evolutionists dismiss this as a problem, and it was something I was illustrating in this point. Those that believe evolution is flawless don’t take into consideration this particular thermodynamic dillema, and they dismiss the idea of external forcing events out of hand, which is irresponsible.

    Although there is none but allegorical proof, if you completely lack proof of your own hypothesis, dismissing another as ridiculous is laughable in the extreme. As we have no real idea how life started on earth, and there has been little put forward to suggest how life sprung up on earth or elsewhere in the universe, you cannot dismiss the actions of an external source. Both ideas have no proof and therefore have equivalent merit– which is about as meritorious as the lint in any one of your pockets.

  9. November 14, 2007 at 12:15 am

    One concept that defies the ‘chicken and egg’ scenario – a concept that the human brain is not wired to accept (evidently yours) is the possiblility of infinity. There is no origin of species because matter can not disappear, it has always existed in some form. In the infinite there are an infinite number of scenarios and given infinite time, and infinite number of likelyhoods are possible. This is certainly more philosophic than scientific, but sometimes thats all we have when considering all possibilities.

  10. 10 docattheautopsy
    November 14, 2007 at 7:04 am

    Are you suggesting that life predates the origin of the universe? Because I have a Big Bang that would like to meet you….

  11. 11 william
    November 14, 2007 at 3:49 pm

    Consider that the universe is infinitely more vast than we can imagine. We humans sure are arrogant. We once thought the planets revolve around the earth. Some think that the universe was created for man and we humans were created in the image of a divine being. Amazing, how important we think we are, merely newborns on the scale of geologic time.

  12. 12 docattheautopsy
    November 15, 2007 at 12:33 am

    Yes, the universe is enormous. But fortunately the physics of the universe doesn’t change. And that includes the laws of thermodynamics.

  13. 13 Mazin
    November 29, 2007 at 9:41 am

    If I tell you that one day I was standing at the sea shore and suddenly I saw wood, iron nails and hammers came flying from no where and started to make a ship by them selves without a craftsman would you beleive my story? The world with its super complex configuration can’t be built without a builder “God”. If evolution is beleived to be right then all the creatures should have been progressed to the more stable form “”Human”, but we still find bacteria and other super small microorganisms living till this day, why they didn’t join the evolution journey and vanished!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


About Me

My name is Doc. Welcome to my blog. If you're visiting from another blog, add me to your blogroll (and I'll happily reciprocate). I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry and live in Wisconsin. If you have any questions, feel free to email me. My email is docattheautopsy at gmail. (No linking to deflate the incredible spam monsters).

Categories

Archives

World Temp Widget

Blog Stats

  • 129,895 hits

RSS The Autopsy

The Autopsy

%d bloggers like this: