There’s a problem with evolution: it seems impossible, improbable, inexplicable. When one looks at the incredible complexity and diversity of life on this planet (and we can’t look elsewhere – as far as we know we are alone amongst the stars) it seems to be a stretch too far to believe that we all started as single celled organisms that, over the last 3 billion years (give or take a million) evolved into every living thing around us. This is one of the key reasons that many people have trouble buying this theory of origins today – it just seems too unlikely for this process not to have had help along the way.Prof Richard Dawkins sums up the problem nicely for us when he says (paraphrasing) that it’s like we are standing at the bottom of a very high cliff, looking straight up. We say to ourselves, ‘there is no way we could get up there, it’s just too high”. I think this is not a bad analogy, for it does seem improbable that we could get from the bottom of the cliff (amoeba) to the top of the cliff (everything that exists around us today) without aid.
He then offers a solution: if we were to look around the other side of the cliff, what we would see is that there is a long, gentle slope stretching from ground level up to the top, and that it is this route that evolution through natural selection took to get us to the top of the cliff. Not a direct ascent, scaling the vertical cliff-face, but a slow, steady stroll up the gentle slope at the rear of the cliff.
Not a bad analogy, right? Seems to take the improbable and make it seem possible. The problem with this idea, though, is that the evidence seems to me to speak against it. When the fossil record is examined, what one finds over and over again is fully formed and complete organisms, organisms from the top of the cliff, with no evidence of that slow ascend Dawkins is selling. Take, for example, the Cambrian Explosion. What one sees here is the sudden arrival in the fossil record of most major groups of animals, in forms that are incredibly similar to today’s animals. This is not evidence of a slow and steady ascent!
What we would need for evidence of a slow and steady ascent would be millions and millions of intermediate fossils, the so-called ‘transitional forms’. Darwin knew this was an obstacle for his theory, but he believed they would be discovered eventually. But 150 years on, they haven’t been. All we have are a handful of fossils (like Archaeopteryx or Ida, the latest flavour-of-the-month) that are claimed by some evolutionists to be a transitional form, while other evolutionists clam they are not a transitional form. This is the best we have – a few examples that not even all the evolutionists are agreed upon. If Dawkins’ slow and steady ascent really took place it would have obviously happened over billions of years, which gives ample opportunity for thousands, possibly millions, of fossils to be preserved after each step evolution took, giving us a pretty good picture of what happened. But that evidence is just not there! Not only is the evidence sparse, it is so sparse that the evolutionary ’tree’ keeps getting re-drawn when new discoveries come to light, which tells us that we really don’t know the way it happened at all. Why should I trust the way the story is told at the moment when it is likely to be re-drawn with the next major find?
If we couple this lack of evidence of transitional forms with the many examples of so-called ‘living fossils’ that look the same today as they did in the earliest fossil records of their kind, showing almost no ‘descent with modification’ over those millions of years we see a fossil record that shows stability in form, not change. For example, the Wollemi Pine, first appearing in the fossil record 150 million years ago, thought to be extinct, then being re-discovered in the mid 1990s in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney, Australia. This tree shows no ‘descent with modification’ just ‘descent’! Or there’s the coelacanth, an ugly fish thought to have died out 300 million years ago, but recently re-discovered alive and well in the Indian Ocean, again showing merely descent, not modification.
It seems to me, therefore, that Dawkins’ attempt to persuade us that his idea of slow and steady ascent doesn’t square with the facts. We have evidence of the rapid appearance of fully formed organisms, no real transitional forms, and ‘living fossils’ that seem to be sitting still, not moving (morphologically speaking) at all. Sorry, Prof, time to go back to the drawing board. And while you’re there, re-draw the evolutionary tree – I’m sure it time for a do-over!
23 comments:
its a mountain a man could climb because he has a brain, but not an amino acid.
second law of thermodynamics, my man. second law.
great post!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant. The earth is not a closed system.
Well, okay, let me clarify: the earth is almost a closed system. Solar (and other cosmic) energy constantly pours in, but essentially no mass leaves the system (with minute amounts too small to be of consequence and have little bearing on the life system anyway.)
Besides, I'm not entirely sure anyone in the evolutionary community has ever said that cosmic rays were the cause of positive mutation... though I may be wrong. I mean, besides Reed Richards ;P
I'm all for "adaptation over time" as long as it is in line with other known "laws" of nature.
For purposes of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the term "almost closed" is meaningless. There are only closed systems and open systems. The earth is an open system because vast amounts of energy pour into it from the sun.
In turn, the earth radiates energy back into space although that is not particularly relevant since it is the fact that it absorbs energy that renders the Second Law of Thermodynamics inapplicable.
The fact that cosmic rays do not directly cause mutations is also irrelevant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not specify the manner in which a source of energy might be used to decrease entropy. The sun did not directly cause the Eiffel Tower to spring up in Paris either. Nevertheless, that decrease in entropy was possible because the system that is the earth is supplied with energy from outside by the sun.
yes, yes. This is what is called a canard.
Let me explain. Lloyd Demetrius, Thermodynamics and evolution in Journal of Theoretical Biology 206(1):1-16 says in short, 'The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution.'
However this is not true, it completely ignores the origin of the information necessary for life. Information theory is a fascinating and insanely deep study - Dr. Werner Gitt has several fascinating articles, books and lectures which have, as of yet, not been refuted (though may be in the future, of course.) but make for interesting study (if not a bit dry.)
In the end, the open systems argument does not help evolution as raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.
To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.
And if you don't like this explanation, you can read what Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
"...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 thermodynamics 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." (John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40)
And in the chance that Boyce Rensberger's ice crystal argument comes up, I quote Jonathan Sarfati:
"Rensberger [seems] ignorant of the creationist responses to this argument. 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."
What does the quote from Dr. Ross look like without the ellipses?
really long! hahah.
its a good read though if you're into that. its available.
Describe it for me.
I can point you to several articles by Duane Gish, Ph.D (Biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley 1953)
Smart fella, though commonly overlooked because he is a creationist. Ben Stein sums up my thoughts on that in the movie Expelled.
Can I take that as an admission that you haven't actually read Dr. Ross' statements in context and that you have no idea whatsoever whether the excerpts you quoted fairly represent his position?
No you cannot. Without the ellipses, it says,"Please be advised that 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.
I recognize that it is very difficult to write an article on as broad a subject as physical chemistry in two pages, and ordinarily I would not bother to point out minor errors. However, 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." It is taken from a Letter to the Editor. It was in response to an article concerning "Physical Chemistry." Ross is not a creationist at all and it should be noted that he (more than likely) agrees with Steiger who says that evolution does not violate the second law - however, once again, Information is completely disregarded where it cannot be (as we are talking about the rise of genetic information in the first place.)
I quote: 'The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.'
I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babyloyants, Physics Today 25(11);23 (1972).
If thats not enough here is more:
an excellent (and long) refute:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/reprints_pdf/dc-02-safull.pdf
or Charles J. Smith, "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 (1968) called the relation between irreversible
thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.
and of course, the often quoted Harold Blum, Princeton Univ., "No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of
thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non - living world." Time's Arrow and Evolution, p.14
(and yes, its the same Ben Stein, though ad hominem donny work here, sonny.)
and please watch your language or your comments will get deleted. (and I will have to delete the statement about Mr. Stein "selling himself.")
So what kind of "far from equilibrium phenomena" was Ross talking about?
Vinny, i appreciate you trying to keep us honest; something I have always admired in your comments and your own posts. However right now, you are arguing an example that doesn't really destroy the argument even if it were swept away. Which it isn't. Ross is an expert on "far-from-equilibrium" phenomena (or so I have been informed - as I'm not, I cannot judge).
"SIR: I am referring to the article entitled 'Physical Chemistry,' C&EN, June 2, page 20. Toward the end of the article is stated: 'Another area where physical chemistry likely has important biological applications is the study of the properties of steady states far from equilibrium. These are stable systems that do not follow the second law of thermodynamics; instead they require a continual supply of energy from outside the system to maintain themselves.' is the paragraph directly before the one I quoted.
It was written in response to an article concerned with the latest equipment and techniques used in the field of physical chemistry. Lasers, Theory and modeling, Biological applications, etc.
Though his point may have been different, the application here still stands.
I think you are trying to say that either I, misquote, or didn't understand what it was I was quoting. Like I say, thanks for keeping us honest. But the truth is, we may have to par it down for our readers; this is only a blog after all.
I highly recommend Dr. Alistair McGrath's book, The Dawkin's Delusion
McGrath holds PhDs in Molecular-BioPhysics and Divinity.
He promotes "scientific theology" in his writings, to my admiration and if there's a club for such as those that do, I wish to join.
This is a very good critique here as well: http://www.citychurchsf.org/openforum/Audio/OF_Alister_McGrath.mp3
Toward the end of the article is stated “Another area where physical chemistry likely has important biological applications is the study of the properties of steady states far from equilibrium. These are stable systems that do not follow the second law of thermodynamics; instead they require a continual supply of energy from outside the system to maintain themselves.”
Now I see what Dr. Ross is saying. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy will increase in a closed system until it reaches a state of equilibrium. The only way to decrease entropy or hold it steady is by adding energy from outside the system. The mistake that Ross is addressing is the idea the Second Law isn’t being followed by a system that uses outside energy to maintain a steady state away from equilibrium. In fact, that is exactly what the Second Law says must happen to maintain such a state.
This is consistent with what I have been saying. There is no conflict between the Second Law and an open system where entropy increases as a result of outside energy being added.
Let me suggest a simple analogy. It would be wrong to say that airplanes don’t follow the law of gravity or that gravity doesn’t apply to airplanes. Airplanes overcome the effects of gravity, but they are certainly not immune to it. By the same token, evolution overcomes the effects of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as the result of the input of energy, but it does not violate it.
That passage you lifted from Jonathan Safarti isn’t relevant because Safarti is simply disputing whether the mechanism would be sufficient to overcome the effects of the Second Law. He acknowledges that entropy can be decreased in an open system, but he disputes that it could happen in the way that the evolutionists propose. That is like arguing that a particular airplane design wouldn’t be sufficient to overcome the effects of the law of gravity. It is a completely different question than whether the law is being violated.
BTW, I think you have given me further basis to believe that you had not previously read Ross’ statement in context. When I asked what the quote looked like without the ellipses, you first replied “really long.” Now it appears that there were only a few more sentences. Moreover, according to Ross, the article to which he was responding was only two pages long. That doesn’t seem “really long” to me. I believe that you simply lifted the Ross quote out of Safarti’s article and only looked up the original when I challenged you.
Vinny, you wily dog! You are constantly alleging that we are taking quotes out of context and misquoting people. You accused Dave of this with regards to Craig and Habermas during his posts on the resurrection of Jesus, but your accusations were shown to be without merit. You have similarly charged me with not reading Ross here, but have been unable to show that I misquoted him. What he said still stands in the context in which I quoted it. For the record, as there is a lot of misquoting that actually does occur (from both sides) I hope its just that you are keeping us accountable, so I have no problem answering to it, but don't let it become a bad game. It's one I'm not really interested in playing. Originally I had read Ross quoted from a man named Wallace (I think, but it was a while back and cannot find the article. He did a miserable job quoting him and misrepresented Ross completely... though I didn't know it at the time. I found out later when he was again quoted by Dr. Gish.) Turns out Ross' statement is quoted a lot and I did go back and see it again in Sarfati's (not Safarti) work. But I had understood the principle long before.
Incidentally, when it comes to quoting for the purposes of a blog, 2 pages is quite long...
Concerning your argument, clearly the principle argument here hasn't been understood or you refuse to look at the original problem: not one of how a plane stays up or that it defies laws if it does, which is like being at the top of Dawkin's mountain, but how the plane got up in the first place. Both are poor analogies really, but as of yet, all you have done is attack our analogies and not faced the original delima, ie. a plane doesn't make itself from scratch (funny if one remember Sir Fred Hoyle's analogy of the 747), nor does it fly itself. It takes information make it, in fact, a man of genius. The Second is never violated. That's why it holds the lofty and ideal status of "law." Being at the top doesn't violate it at all, and Ross knows this - he was correcting a mistake on Physical Chemistry, like that of Photosynthesis which does require, thank God, the sun to perpetuate life on earth - but completely creating information from chaotic scratch would indeed violate it. The isolated system in this case isn't really the "earth" so to speak after all: it's the system of information within the whole universe, with particular interest to the earth. An amino acid cannot climb the mountain nor build a plane... but a brain can - attached to legs, of course. (wink)
... so much for lunch today. Sorry for errors, I'm writing things out while traveling and eating at the same time... (BTW, I just like ellipses and (parenthesis), or haven't you guys noticed?)
;P
With all the peer reviewed books and journal articles that have been written dealing with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, isn’t it interesting that this one obscure letter to a magazine gets cited by the anti-evolutionists so frequently?
How's this for timing? STR just sent me an email advertising a new DVD available at their website www.str.org - "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record"!
I knew Dr Harold Blum the Princeton Professor of Biology who wrote the book Time's Arrow and Evolution (1951, 1968) that is now often cited as a case against biological evolution. He would be appalled that quotes from his book are used today as a case against evolution. He was an evolutionary biologist of the first order.
Congratulations! I'd have loved to have met him.
Welcome John, thanks for joining us.
Well, know him or not, friend or not, and, well, his intentions or not, that doesn't mean that the facts, if that is what he says he is reporting, cannot be viewed from another point of view other than his own. Doubtless you are exactly right, he would be appalled, but evolutionary science is simply falling apart at the "seems" the more we find out. There is just nothing to back up the bold claims that evolutionary theory is making (or has ever made, for that matter). There never will be anything to back up Creationists either, mind you, at least, not until the End, but we are all free to make our own decisions out of the facts presented. Don't evolutionists know what the post-modern era taught them, or do they only like to quote that when it suits them too?
Post a Comment