Evolution

[Bret]

There have been attempts in the past to disprove evolution, by stating that evolution does not comply with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Thermo2). Thermo2 can be stated many different ways, but essentially says that given no outside influences (in a closed system), the overall system will tend to increase in entropy over time. Entropy is a very difficult concept to understand, and is often incorrectly equated to “randomness.” A better synonym for entropy is probably equilibrium, rather than randomness. Thermo2 doesn’t necessarily disprove evolution, because a higher life form can be in greater state of entropy (equilibrium) than a lower life form.

I will take a slightly different approach, based on the idea of “motivation” – what motivates objects to combine with other objects to form new ones. We’ll start at the same place that evolutionary theory begins: the atom.

Chemistry states atoms combine with other atoms to produce molecules with the lowest energy state possible. Atoms will combine with other atoms if the combination will ultimately release energy, and will likewise un-combine with other atoms if they will ultimately release energy. The motivational force behind what the atoms do (how they combine with other atoms) is their energy level.

Thermo2 states that in a closed system, the atoms and molecules will combine and un-combine in a way that maximizes entropy. The amount of energy transferring between the different objects within the system will equalize out over time, and the distribution of energy will become “uniform” from the perspective of the system (though not necessarily from the perspective or the individual objects within the system). The motivational force behind what the objects do (how they react and combine with each other) is the system entropy.

The Theory of Evolution states that the way atoms and molecules combine is determined by Natural Selection. That is, atoms and molecules will combine and un-combine randomly, potentially forming “useful” objects (say, amino acids or proteins or DNA strings). The combination will stay together longer if it is “more useful” or “more fit” than some other random combination of atoms, based on its “survivability.”

Natural Selection states that these molecular combinations somehow “perceive” that they are potentially useful (whether they actually are or not), have a “will” or “volition” or “desire” to survive, and will try to replicate themselves into eternity. Are you already beginning to see how utterly preposterous this whole concept is?

Obviously, the molecular combinations have no “will” or “volition”, and “survival” and “replication” have no conceptual meaning to them whatsoever, and evolutionists never state that they do. Rather, there is a tacit assumption underlying the Theory of Evolution that says that the desire for complicated objects to survive as long as possible and replicate themselves is simply “built into” nature. There is no “will to survive” that comes from within an object, but rather it is an outside influence (Natural Selection) that determines how new, complicated objects are formed. Survivability (in the form of Natural Selection) supercedes, or at lease co-exists, with chemical, thermodynamic, and all other natural laws.

Unfortunately, Natural Selection is not a natural law at all, because it requires a “will” or “desire” or “intelligence” that is capable of determining whether or not objects are worthy of surviving. Evolutionists implicitly state that there is something inherent in nature that looks at an object and says, “What you atoms did there might be a really good thing. You need to do that again. Did you atoms over there see what they just did? You need to do that too.” Of course, that is utterly preposterous (the stuff of dementia, not of science). Unfortunately for evolutionists, that is the concept of Natural Selection in a nutshell.

I suppose one could try to argue that Natural Selection is itself a product of evolution, which of course involves circular reasoning. Natural Selection must be there from the very beginning, and it must apply at all levels (even at the molecular level). Without Natural Selection, the Theory of Evolution lies in shambles.

Trying to prove that Natural Selection is true is very problematic, not only because it lies outside the purview of the scientific method, but also because it is patently absurd even at face value. There must be a motivation to “survive”, which is not observed in anything except the higher life forms, and that comes from the inside, not the outside. It is simply impossible for molecules to evolve into higher life forms without outside influence, no matter how many millions of years you wait. There is no motivation for them to do anything except distribute into equilibrium.

I imagine that if confronted with the argument as stated here, an evolutionist could try to use the same circular reasoning they claim creationists always use. Essentially, “It’s true that if the motivational force to survive doesn’t exist, then evolution can’t be true. But evolution is true (because I believe it is), so the motivational force must exist. However, the force is not God (because I don’t believe he exists).”

If you actually believe that Natural Selection is true, you have a lot more faith in unprovable nonsense than I do in God. It doesn’t take a lot of faith to believe in something you can see evidence for everywhere you look. You just have to ask God to open up your eyes so that you can see The Truth.

[BuklerMan]

100%

[HolyBat]

+1

[NipelHOD]

+1

[BolUN]

topic close?

[NolUUn]

interesting discussion!

[NauNetTerm]

+1

[BastetFurry]

(in a closed system)

So, what if our system was never closed?
There are theories that life was brought trough an asteroid to this planet, not by the asteroid itself but by the things it started.
We created amino-acids just with boiling mineral saturated water and a bunch of simulated thunders, and if i remember correctly, that was in ~1920.
What if that asteroid started that? The system is not closed.

And for the evolution part, i for myself think that life itself strives for a higher goal, the creation of some kind of super-being.
Just think about it, every human generation is a tiny little bit smarter than the last one, and if that line wont stop, where will it take us?

[Bret]

We created amino-acids just with boiling mineral saturated water and a bunch of simulated thunders, and if i remember correctly, that was in ~1920.

Look at this: http://www.gotquestions.org/abiogenesis ... heory.html

What if that asteroid started that? The system is not closed.

If you believe in the big bang theory (and I assume that you do), then you must believe that the system is closed. The system is the entire universe, not merely the earth. An asteroid is a very, very, very, very small part of the system, not an outside influence.

Just think about it, every human generation is a tiny little bit smarter than the last one, and if that line wont stop, where will it take us?

We are not smarter than previous generations, no matter how much we would like to believe that we are. We have a larger knowledge base from which to start than previous generations, so we do less "re-inventing the wheel" than we used to. But that's because of our technological ability to store and disseminate information, not because we're "smarter" or "better" in some way.

And for the evolution part, i for myself think that life itself strives for a higher goal, the creation of some kind of super-being.

I can certainly understand why you would want to think that, since it's really the only thing that could give your life meaning without God. Unfortunately, there's absolutely no evidence to support it, and in fact the evidence suggests the exact opposite. Mankind has not changed, and cannot change, at the most fundamental level -- he is still selfish and evil at his core.

[Pinkpuff]

Hi,

I may or may not technically be a Christian depending on your definition, but in any case I'm not an evolutionist per se (I've never really taken a big interest in biology), but I from what I understand of the theory, it's not that natural selection has a "will" or its own "concept" of what mechanisms are "good" vs what ones are "bad". I thought it was more like, the creatures which survive long enough to reproduce will naturally pass on their genes (since they lived) and the ones that die before having a chance to reproduce won't (since they're dead). Thus if there is some feature that a creature has that prevents it or hinders it from living long enough to reproduce, the creatures with that feature will have a good chance of dying out in a short number of generations (since few of them will live long enough to have opportunity to reproduce), thus the feature is eventually eliminated from the gene pool (which of course doesn't prevent it from being re-mutated back in eventually, but at least it's not being actively propagated). On the other hand, the ones whose features enable them to survive long enough to reproduce, since they're passing on their genes, many of their children inherit that feature, thus propagating it. The result being that features that are shared by those who survived are more likely to be ones which aid in survival and are more likely to be propagated to the next generation, whereas the features which are shared by those who did not survive long are less likely to aid in survival and less likely to be propagated.

Also, I'd like to take exception to this statement:

We are not smarter than previous generations, no matter how much we would like to believe that we are. We have a larger knowledge base from which to start than previous generations, so we do less "re-inventing the wheel" than we used to. But that's because of our technological ability to store and disseminate information, not because we're "smarter" or "better" in some way.

While I think that you're right on an individual level (i.e. I don't think our biology is significantly different enough to say that we're somehow innately smarter), on a societal level, I think we've come a long way, even in the past few hundred years.

Since we have more recorded history now than we did in the past, we are able to learn from our experiences as a race and see what worked, what didn't, and what the results of certain actions and attitudes are. And while of course a lot of people don't learn from this, a lot of pepole do. A hundred years ago, people with dark skin were treated as slaves and not entirely human. Since then we've grown as a society in such a way that we realize that we can't treat people like that and slavery is outlawed, and people that were once slaves now have the same rights as everyone else. A hundred years ago, women were treated as the property of men (you can still see remnants of this today in some of our traditions, such as the wedding ceremony) but now we've grown in such a way that (most) people understand that it is wrong to see people in that way.

Thus I think we've grown socially and morally as a society, not just technologically. That being said, of course we still have a very very long way to go to improve, but I do think we're on the way up as opposed to going down or staying the same.

[japheth]

Hi,
... it's not that natural selection has a "will" or its own "concept" of what mechanisms are "good" vs what ones are "bad". I thought it was more like, the creatures which survive long enough to reproduce will naturally pass on their genes (since they lived) and the ones that die before having a chance to reproduce won't (since they're dead).

This is true and very important. Selection is not a law, it's a "statistical effect". There's no "will" or "subject" needed to make this effect happen.

Also, I'd like to take exception to this statement:

We are not smarter than previous generations, no matter how much we would like to believe that we are. We have a larger knowledge base from which to start than previous generations, so we do less "re-inventing the wheel" than we used to. But that's because of our technological ability to store and disseminate information, not because we're "smarter" or "better" in some way.

While I think that you're right on an individual level (i.e. I don't think our biology is significantly different enough to say that we're somehow innately smarter), on a societal level, I think we've come a long way, even in the past few hundred years.

I disagree. Today's homo sapiens has no higher IQ than the ones living 10.000 years ago. The "progress" which has happened since - some call it "cultural evolution", but this is a very misleading term - doesn't make us more smart. Also, while technical progress is undenyable ( although its effects are pretty ambiguous ), it's rather questionable if "social progress" happens at all - it might be just an illusion.