Disclosure. of things evolutionists don t want you to know

Transcription

1 Disclosure of things evolutionists don t want you to know Volume 19 Issue 8 May 2015 Thermodynamic Thoughts Thermodynamic principles have application beyond calculation of heat flow. Elsewhere in this newsletter, Ryan asks some questions which require an understanding of thermodynamics to answer. When someone says that evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, ask him to explain this statement found on Wikipedia: 1 According to the Clausius equality, for a reversible cyclic process: This means the line integral is path-independent. So we can define a state function S called entropy, which satisfies Don t be so cruel as to ask him to actually do the calculations for even the simplest situation. Just ask him to read the equations and tell you what they mean. If someone can t even read the equations, can he really know what they have to do with evolution? We realize that any rigorous explanation of entropy is likely to go over the heads of most readers so we offer this explanation which does not require calculus and uses water analogies instead. Imagine you have an empty bucket. You put 5 cups of water in that bucket. Then you put in 2 more cups of water. Then you take out 4 cups. Add another 3 cups. How many cups of water are 1 in the bucket? = 6. There are 6 cups of water in the bucket, assuming the bucket doesn t leak. If the bucket leaks, there is no way of knowing exactly how much water is in the bucket but you do know is that it is less than 6 cups. A leaky bucket is an open system. A tank with a secure lid, with no leaks, is a closed system. If you know how much water you put in a closed system, and how much water you take out, then you know how much water is in the tank at any given time. In thermodynamics, we talk about heat flow in and out of a system. A perfectly insulated system is a closed system. No heat flows in or out. An open system is like a leaky bucket which allows heat to enter or escape. A perfect ice chest (if it existed) would be a closed system. If you put hot water and a few ice cubes in the ice chest and closed the lid tightly, the water would melt the ice, and eventually the chest would contain uniformly warm water. If you waited a little while longer, would the uniformly warm water naturally revert to a few ice cubes in hot water? No. The reason is that uniformly warm water has more entropy (that is, more disorder) than water that is organized into ice cubes and hot water. Entropy is a measure of disorganization. In a closed system, entropy can never decrease. In a closed system, heat always flows from a hot place to a cold place, warming the cold place up, and cooling the hot place down, until both are the same temperature. But what about the freezer in your kitchen? If 1

2 you put a bucket of water in the freezer, heat will flow out of the water, out the coils in the back of the freezer and into your nice, warm kitchen. The water would get even colder, and some of it would freeze. (Eventually, all of it would freeze.) Heat flows from the cold water into warm room, apparently violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the entropy has decreased. The entropy decreased because the freezer is an open system, like the leaky bucket, which let some of the entropy leak out. If you plugged the freezer into a portable gasoline generator, with a tank full of fuel, put the bucket of water in the freezer, inside a perfectly insulated room, fired up the generator, and closed the door, what would happen? The water in the freezer would freeze. The entropy in the freezer would decrease but the entropy of the room would increase by more than entropy decrease in the freezer, so the total entropy of the closed system (that is, the room and everything in it) would actually increase, in theory. In practice, the generator would eventually run out of fuel, the freezer would stop working, heat would leak from the room into the imperfectly insulated freezer, until everything was the same temperature, and the entropy would be as high as it could get. When everything is at the same temperature, it is said to be at equilibrium, and entropy is at its maximum. Everything is equal temperature, so there will be no heat flow, and no work can be done. The reason why entropy can decrease in a freezer is because energy flows into the freezer from outside, raising the entropy outside more than the entropy decrease inside. External energy can cause an open system to experience a decrease in entropy but here s the point that evolutionists miss. They claim that entropy can decrease on Earth because Earth is an open system, receiving energy from the Sun. They fail to realize that the energy has to be applied in the proper way. If we put a bucket of ice and water out in the hot summer sunlight, the energy coming from the Sun does not cause more water to freeze. It causes the ice to melt even faster because the energy isn t harnessed for a purpose as it is in a freezer. The reason why entropy can decrease inside a freezer is because of clever design. Undirected external energy does not cause entropy to decrease in an open system. The energy has to be applied properly. 2 Same Equations, Different Situations There is a marvelous mathematical consistency in nature. For example, the secondorder equation that describes the flow of electrical current through an inductor, capacitor, and resistor is exactly the same as the equation that describes what happens in a physical system consisting of a spring, a mass, and friction. This not only allows engineers to simulate physical systems using an electrical circuit, it helps engineers understand how physical and electrical systems work. In 1948, when Claude Shannon wrote his seminal paper 2 on what would eventually be known as Information Theory, he used the term entropy because he recognized the similarity between information flow and heat flow. He explained information in terms of heat because thermodynamic disorder was something engineers already understood. Some physicists are searching for The Theory of Everything because they recognize that many phenomena are just special cases of one general principle. Engineers familiar with entropy and information recognize that the fundamental concept of entropy applies to biology as well as thermodynamics and information. An understanding of entropy helps engineers understand biology because the principles are the same. Three Interrelated Questions What makes life special? Hopefully this month s feature essay on thermodynamics will give you the background you need to understand Ryan s concerns about life and equilibrium. We have broken his long into sections in order to address each section separately. Here s the first part: I have three interrelated questions. Can you or someone else try to answer? The only problem is you have to use science. The questions are the problems that one faces when they try to explain away the specialness of life. 1. When I was in my first year of 2 C. E. Shannon, The Bell System Technical Journal, July, 1948, A Mathematical Theory of Communication, ber=

3 college, I was taught that a cell at equilibrium was a dead cell. The next year I was taught that all things Strive for equilibrium. The logical implication being living things should STRIVE to die. But they don't. They strive and struggle to live. Not only that but they reproduce!!!? Instead of dying like a good freak of nature, it [a living cell] consumes and forces good obedient molecules to help in this uprising against the natural laws. To summarize Question 1: Why don't chemicals in their attempt to reach equilibrium rip the cell they are host to apart. Ryan was taught a cell at equilibrium was a dead cell. Yes, equilibrium is a characteristic of a dead cell. It assumes room temperature. But beyond that, dead cells decay, which is yet another level of equilibrium. He was correctly taught that all things strive for equilibrium ; but the word strive is perhaps overly anthropomorphic. It would be more correct to say that all things tend toward equilibrium. Strive implies some sort of volition (purposeful action). The statement, however, is a correct simplification of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Left alone, everything will eventually settle to the lowest energy state, where everything is at equilibrium and no work can be done. There is some confusion about how the Second Law of Thermodynamics explains why things tend to move from order to disorder. What that really means is that heat tends to even out (tending toward equilibrium). The confusion for many people is they don t understand that order means more difference in energy levels and disorder means less difference in energy levels. For order to increase inside a system (that is for the difference in energy levels to increase inside a system) some energy has to come from outside the system to make that happen. But although energy from an outside source is a necessary condition, it isn t a sufficient condition. It takes energy and something else to cause an increase in the difference in energy levels. That something else is conscious effort. It always takes a conscious effort to make anything tend away from equilibrium in the physical world. For example, somebody has to design a pump, and attach it to a power supply, to make water flow uphill. Walls naturally fall down. It takes energy and conscious effort to build walls up. Here s the problem that Ryan has discovered. Although it is true in the inanimate, physical world, things naturally tend toward equilibrium, that isn t the case in the biological world. For example, a plant takes energy from the sun and uses it to combine water and carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons (sugars and fats) to store that energy for future use. A plant appears to violate the second law but it doesn t because it is an open system (that is, it gets energy from an external source). But where does the conscious effort come from? Plants don t possess volition. Here s the important point: Only living things create order. Whether it is an apple tree making apples, or an engineer designing an irrigation system, the natural tendency toward equilibrium is upset by living things. So, with all that background, here is the answer to Question 1: Why don't chemicals in their attempt to reach equilibrium rip the cell they are host to apart? Chemicals DO attempt to rip cells apart, and they are successful when the cell is dead. But there is something about life that works against this natural chemical tendency. Nobody really knows what that something is. That s what makes life so unusual and mysterious. Life does actually strive against the natural tendency to reach equilibrium. When the living cell dies, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does drive the cell to room temperature, and then causes the energy stored in the organic compounds in the cell to be released as the organic compounds decay to less complex molecules with less stored energy. It is a correct, scientific observation that living things do create order, and inanimate things never do. Science can recognize and measure the difference between living and dead things but can t explain why the difference exists. Question 2. Why do things evolve in the first place? I get the whole survival of the fittest thing, but there is a big problem. As things become more complex the easier it is for errors to occur. And the threshold for those errors to be fatal becomes larger. Or in simpler terms the more complex something is the easier it is for small errors to kill it. Not only that, but the payoff for achieving another level of complexity becomes smaller for every level achieved. An example is that the fastest lion will probably kill 2-3 more gazelles than the average in its lifetime. The fastest amoeba however will probably eat several hundred more bacteria than average in its lifetime. Then there is the reproduction problem. This is related to the overall question: Why evolve? It states that if the end goal of every individual in every species is to reproduce then why is it that as you go lower towards our origins organisms reproduce MORE! To compare how good each species is at making babies goes something like this: bacteria > spiders > rats > humans. Yet each of those things is considered more evolved than the one that came before it. Bacteria in fact are so good at reproducing they can inject DNA into other cells of a different species. So to summarize Question 2: Isn't better to 3

4 stay a cell? Yes, it is better to stay a simple cell from a purely evolutionary point of view. The fact that there are more complex organisms is proof that the theory of evolution is wrong. Question 3. The Cancer Problem. This goes along the lines that if survival of the fittest drives evolution, then everything should attempt to reach the top of the food chain. Things at the top of the food chain can breed without threat of being eaten, yet they usually have a low birthrate. Strange. Everything should try to evolve into a dominate apex predator that reproduces often. This has only ever been observed in invasive species and cancer cells. Cancer cells are the MacDaddys of the microscopic world. They are well cancer in the macroscopic world. [??? sic] Very deadly to their host. To summarize question 3: Evolution predicts every cell should be attempting to be cancer cells, so organisms should be ripping themselves apart. And that every species is attempting to be cancer organisms, so ecosystems should be ripping themselves apart. We didn t quite follow all of Ryan s logic, but we think we understand his main point. Evolution does predict that cells should be as reproductive and ruthless as cancer cells to a point. If a parasite gets too aggressive, it kills the host, and dies with it. If the lions eat all the gazelles, the lions will starve to death. So, Ryan s analysis is basically correct. Unchecked competition would cause ecosystems to collapse. But competition is naturally checked because it is self-limiting. If I were to speak to a Naturalist or a Materialist my question would be, do they understand the logical implications of their worldview, and why the world doesn't follow those implications. Chemicals don't rip cells apart. Cells don't rip organisms apart. Organisms don't rip ecosystems apart. And things don't want to evolve in the first place. I have rarely seen a Creationist or anybody raise these questions, and I hope they get answered. Chemicals (especially oxygen) do tend to rip dead cells apart. But living cells can use chemicals to build more complex chemical compounds, and more cells. That leads to questions along the lines of, What is life, really? That tends to lead Naturalists and Materialists down a supernatural path neither we nor they wish to travel. Evolutionists do recognize the tension between selfishness and altruism, and go to great lengths to try to explain how unselfishness really is selfish on some grander level. But their arguments aren t very convincing. Perhaps creationists should play the Love Card more often, but, as Ryan observed, they don t very often. 4 Knock It Off! Advice from an evolutionist Here s what it is like to live in our world! We get hate mail like this from Chris. Here is his complete , with our comments interspersed. Subject: Knock it off Date: May 2, 2015 Your website isn't working. There are still millions out there who believe in evolution. If our website isn t working, why does he care and want us to knock it off? The evidence for it is also quite the mountain load, so you might as well give up and let science win. And how dare you call evolution a lie. If it's science, then it completely agrees with each other to begin with. As is typical of the hate mail we get, he claims there is a mountain load of evidence for evolution, but doesn t say what it is. Don't try to promote creation since you know well that religion is only something faith based. Just because it's the bible [sic] doesn't mean it's true. After all, what were you taught your whole life? Oh yeah, DO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ! This is an exception with science, since science is a bunch of information that can be proven. Religion cannot be proven because it doesn't qualify as science. No matter how much you try, you'll never convince the public that this or that was a real event. After all, if the bible [sic] is correct, then where is the ark now? Where is the Garden? And how come we haven't found the bones of Adam and Eve? Try to figure that one out, sir. Checkmate. I win. We responded by asking him to tell us what the mountain load of evidence for evolution is. We specifically told him to give us a scientific explanation, and even said, Evolution must be true because the Bible is false is not a scientific answer. We also took this opportunity to see if he understands how science works by writing to him, I don't understand why you say, "No matter how much you try, you'll never convince the public that this or that was a real event." What is this or that event we are trying to prove? We admit to trying to prove our Kentucky Derby Limit theorem, which we proposed in our June, 1999, newsletter, v3i9f.htm. (By the way, American Pharaoh confirmed our theorem again yesterday.) Our Kentucky Derby Limit theorem is real science. We made an observation. We took some measurements that confirmed

5 our observation. We proposed a theory (based upon genetics) to explain the phenomenon revealed by the measurements. We made predictions about future races, which have been confirmed 15 years in a row. Our theorem could have been falsified multiple times in those past 15 years but it wasn t. The theory of evolution holds as one of its postulates that there is no limit to how much a species can evolve. Evolutionists say this lack of a limit allowed a dinosaur to evolve into a hummingbird. Evolutionists say lots of microevolution eventually leads to macroevolution. We said that isn t true. We said there is a limit to how much a species can evolve. In particular, we said there is a limit to how fast a horse can run. For more than 140 years, many people have spent many millions of dollars trying to breed horses that can run 1.25 miles as quickly as possible. Race horses got steadily faster from 1896 up until they reached the Kentucky Derby Limit in That is real, scientific proof that microevolution does not proceed without limit. Furthermore, running faster isn t an unfair test. If we had claimed there is a limit to microevolution because horses have not evolved wings (or even feathers), that would have been an unfair test. But running just a little bit faster isn t an unreasonable request. The assertion that species can evolve without limits is contrary to well-documented scientific observations at Churchill Downs every May. We do agree that religion isn t science, so we ended our response to him with these words: Why are you asking us about Adam and Eve's bones? We don't even know where Jimmy Hoffa's bones are. (Does the fact Hoffa's bones have never been found prove to you that he never existed?) We don t know where Natalee Holloway s bones are, either; but we are pretty sure she existed, too, even though I never met her personally. As you said, religion isn t science. What does any religious belief have to do with evolution? Why do evolutionists always change the subject away from science, and drag religion into it? We aren't playing chess--but it is your move. We really want you to give us any scientific evidence that proves the theory of evolution, or any specific factual error we have ever made on our website. Is that too much to ask? Here s his entire response, sent May 4. Oh you better believe all the money in the world I'll give you a good slate of evidence. But before I begin, I'm just gonna say again how disappointed I am that you reject a widely accepted fact. Ok, enough chit chat, here's your evidence my good sir. First and foremost, let us begin with the story of the first book of Genesis itself. This tidbit tells us all that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Then it goes on to say how the light was formed and the land and the animals, and eventually human beings. Now, with this in mind, ask yourself this; If Adam and Eve were real people, then how come we haven't found their bony remains? We've been at work looking at what was left of some of history's most famous and yet we still haven't found any sign of the first man and woman fossilized. However, there are so many unidentified skeletal corpses out there that any of them could be the latter, but with rebuttal once more, how do we know it's them? Until we find Adam and Eve and what is left of them, this is one piece of evidence that correlates with my point. Second, let's talk transition. As you know, transition is how one thing changes into. For example, in humans, children transition over to teens and teens to adults. This is another good point to make with organisms we find in the fossil record. While both evolutionists and creationists can agree at the same time that there is a rather large fossil record, both groups will battle it out with what we call transitional fossils. These are the remains of ancient creatures that show how they change into a different creature. Let's talk about the animal that was responsible for the arrival of the tetrapods, Tiktaalik. This was a prehistoric species that lived during the Devonian Period. When you look up a picture of it, look at the features. It has the tail and scales of a fish, but wait, you suddenly look to see limbs that are what fins are now. Hmm... Sounds like another piece of evidence for evolution. It evolved into what land dwelling creatures we see these days and even back millions of years ago. And just so you know, just because no one was around to witness evolution, according to you, doesn't mean science can test it. How about "bird hipped" dinosaurs? Doesn't that tell you anything about evolution? If it doesn't, I'll start this by saying that we were all taught by our science teachers that the flappy little songbirds and much larger birds of prey we see today came from the largest creatures to ever stomp on the earth. Theropods are categorized to have birdlike hips, so something about that needs to be said thus it can only make sense that our bird feeder friends are related to Tyrannosaurus Rex and his avian hipped buddies. Lastly, can we discuss the Grand Canyon? Ok, we shall. It is claimed by creationists that the Flood of Noah was responsible for forming this wonder of the United States. But what you don't realize is that the lack of such beauty exists in other parts of the world. So if the Flood did happen, then how come there aren't Grand Canyons on other continents? This disproves Flood geology and proves evolutionary geology. There's your evidence. Now try to figure it out, and let me know when you understand for all purposes that your site is nothing more than propaganda that is forcing the masses to turn away from real science. How dare you call evolution a lie. 5

6 Religion We asked him for scientific evidence, and he came back with Adam and Eve, and Noah. He did not address our Kentucky Derby Limit. Coincidentally, on the same day we received an from someone else asking us our opinion on a video in which someone tried to make the case that one can be a Christian and still believe in evolution. Many people have argued that one can believe in the Bible and evolution; but we have never heard anyone claim that one can be an atheist and NOT believe in evolution. In fact, we have never even heard anyone ask the question, Can one reject evolution and still be an atheist? Perhaps it is true that one can t be an atheist without believing in evolution. If so, then no matter how compelling the scientific evidence is, an atheist cannot reject evolution. That s why evolutionists always defend the theory by attacking the Bible. Human Bones Chris first point was, If Adam and Eve were real people, then how come we haven't found their bony remains? Until we find Adam and Eve and what is left of them, this is one piece of evidence that correlates with my point. He thinks that is a logical, scientific argument! If you can t find their bones, they didn t exist. Did he stop to think that the myth of human evolution depends upon the existence of many transitional hominids whose bones have never been found? The lack of bones is actually an excellent argument against evolution! Transitional Forms Let s go on to his second point. Second, let's talk transition. As you know, transition is how one thing changes into. For example, in humans, children transition over to teens and teens to adults. Is he intentionally confusing evolution with maturity, or does he really not know the difference? His compelling evidence for transition was Tiktaalik. We did write about Tiktaalik when it was discovered. 3 We hope you will go back and read our thorough analysis of the published reports. Notice that Chris is willing to accept Tiktaalik as a transitional form just from an artist s picture of it. He thinks that if things look similar, they must be related. But, as we pointed out nine years ago, there are several features which don t look like they should. Not only is it impossible to determine heredity from physical appearance, Tiktaalik doesn t even look right. He said, Science And just so you know, just because no one was around to witness evolution, according to you, doesn't mean science can test it. We think he intended to say that even a phenomenon that has never been observed can be scientifically verified. If so, he rejects the traditional concept of The Scientific Method and accepts the modern concept of Science by Consensus, which is free of the burden of observation and experimental proof. He believes that whatever the majority believes must be true. (Unless, of course, the majority believes the Bible.) The next point he makes is, I'll start this by saying that we were all taught by our science teachers that the flappy little songbirds and much larger birds of prey we see today came from the largest creatures to ever stomp on the earth. In his first to us, he shouted (in all caps) that we should not believe everything we read. But, apparently he thinks it is OK to believe everything a science teacher says, no matter how ridiculous it is. Who s Winning? The first two sentences of his first to us were: Your website isn't working. There are still millions out there who believe in evolution. But the second to last sentence in his second contains the phrase, your site is nothing more than propaganda that is forcing the masses to turn away from real science. How can a website, which isn t working, force masses to turn away from real science? Chris seems to be a product of public education, which really is forcing masses to turn away from real science by substituting philosophy and speculation for the Scientific Method. The theory of evolution cannot be established using the Scientific Method. That s why the Scientific Method has been denigrated in public schools and replaced by consensus. 3 Disclosure, May 2006, A Fishy Ancestor, 6

7 Web Site of the Month May 2015 by Lothar Janetzko A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism There Is Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. It deserves to be heard. This month s website review looks at a site which seeks to promote careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory. The website was created to allow scientists to sign a statement expressing their beliefs regarding claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. The main page of the site serves as the launching point for gaining insight into why scientists should consider adding their names to a list of scientists advocating dissent from Darwinism. You can view the site in a number of different languages including chn, fin, fra, hun, idn, isr, ita, jpn, kor, nld, prt, rus, esp, twn and tur. Just click on the flag of the country to select a particular language. An interesting feature of the main page of the website is that by refreshing the page in your web browser, you will find a different quote from a scientist who has added his name to the list. I found reading the different quotes quite informative. The main page provides tabs or links for Home, About, Scientists, FAQ, Download, Links and Contact. In addition, a large button serves as a link for Resources for Students. The About page provides background into why the list was created. Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true. The FAQ page answers many questions the reader may have regarding the statement numerous scientists have signed. You will find interesting reading material under Resources for Students. Topics include 1) Why is Darwinian Evolution Controversial? 2) Is Darwinian Evolution Just a Theory? 3) Answering Objections to the Dissent from Darwinism List, and 4) How Should We Teach Evolution? The Links page presents the following three articles: 1) Fact Sheet: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution, 2) Fact Sheet: The Cambrian Explosion and 3) The Survival of the Fakest. There is much to explore on this site, so just follow topics of interest. You are permitted (even encouraged) to copy and distribute this newsletter. Disclosure, the Science Against Evolution newsletter, is edited by R. David Pogge. All back issues are on-line at ScienceAgainstEvolution.info. 7