If the theory of evolution by natural selection violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics it should not be too surprising to find that ideas and theories founded on the same thinking may also be shown to violate other laws of physics. The scope of influence of evolutionary thinking cannot be underestimated as to its effects on almost every aspect of science and education from medicine to economics.. so what if its wrong!!
1. The Law of Biogenesis Louis Pasteur circa 1860
Inorganic chemistry.. molecules are supposed to have 'competed' for fitness, resulting in greater size and complexity in the primordial soup on an ancient earth cooling down from its assumed hot beginning. All leading to a self replicating RNA or DNA molecule or a proto-protein capable of replication. That's the essence of 'abiogenesis', however.
Last night on the BBC Story of Science Power, Proof and Passion program 23rd Aug 2013, Michael J Mosley made a watershed admission.. DNA can only exist within a cell, complete with all its complex systems that maintain it and make it work. The observation was simply put "living cells come from living cells".. and he concluded life started.. complex not simple.
Biogenesis is back on the podium.. (Omni vitum ex vita).
2. The First Law - the baryon number problem
After Einstein we knew mass was a concentrated form of energy and it could be converted directly into energy as confirmed by the atomic bomb. Conversely energy can be 'concentrated' to form mass. However.. the law of conservation dictates that whenever this happens you always get an equal number of anti-matter particles and matter particles (baryons - matter particles).
So the postulate of a big bang creating matter from energy means you not only get a universe.. but also an anti-universe!! Which means they should both annihilate one another and return to energy.! So it is postulated this universe is just the 'ashes' left over from a very much bigger bang than anyone can imagine.. meaning the universe is just the tiny 'error'.
Laws would breakdown at a big bang singularity.. however the energy -> mass conversion occurs after the singularity. The assumption of a baryon number error the size of this universe has to qualify as a violation of the 1st law.
There's more.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Appendix 3.3 Evolutionary Predictions
Last but not least is..
(3) Computer Simulation
From Darwin 1857 to about 1990 it was not possible to do really big model simulation and the only method was complex algebra and later calculus to find analytic solutions (formula with general applicability). But many problems have no analytic solution.
In the 1990's massively parallel computers became available allowing for simulation of such things as the weather.. and the solution of very large structural problems.. (economics is apparently still out of reach :*()
Surely evolution... bunch of replicating things.. subject to occasional random change.. in an environment with a few enemies, a few different foods, a few ecological niches etc. let it run and see what survives.. a lot easier than the weather I would imagine. Checking the Wiki..(Evolutionary Algorithm)
"Techniques from evolutionary algorithms applied to the modeling of biological evolution are generally limited to explorations of microevolutionary processes. The computer simulations Tierra and Avida attempt to model macroevolutionary dynamics." (complete with spelling error.. mutation.. hmm)
Hint.. "macroevolution" means create new information.. "attempt" means NO its not been done..
In 'Climbing Mount Improbable' Richard Dawkins promised this prediction would be fulfilled within ten years.. that was 1996. From my falsification I can confidently say it will never be done.. because macro-evolution implies a violation of the Second Law for any DNA coding protein type life on any Earth like planet.
The humble honey bee routinely does problems we need a supercomputer to solve?
A little humility is probably in order for us..
(3) Computer Simulation
From Darwin 1857 to about 1990 it was not possible to do really big model simulation and the only method was complex algebra and later calculus to find analytic solutions (formula with general applicability). But many problems have no analytic solution.
In the 1990's massively parallel computers became available allowing for simulation of such things as the weather.. and the solution of very large structural problems.. (economics is apparently still out of reach :*()
Surely evolution... bunch of replicating things.. subject to occasional random change.. in an environment with a few enemies, a few different foods, a few ecological niches etc. let it run and see what survives.. a lot easier than the weather I would imagine. Checking the Wiki..(Evolutionary Algorithm)
"Techniques from evolutionary algorithms applied to the modeling of biological evolution are generally limited to explorations of microevolutionary processes. The computer simulations Tierra and Avida attempt to model macroevolutionary dynamics." (complete with spelling error.. mutation.. hmm)
Hint.. "macroevolution" means create new information.. "attempt" means NO its not been done..
In 'Climbing Mount Improbable' Richard Dawkins promised this prediction would be fulfilled within ten years.. that was 1996. From my falsification I can confidently say it will never be done.. because macro-evolution implies a violation of the Second Law for any DNA coding protein type life on any Earth like planet.
The humble honey bee routinely does problems we need a supercomputer to solve?
A little humility is probably in order for us..
Appendix 3.2 Evolutionary Predictions
(2) Systematic Taxonomy
The evolutionary algorithm is a theory of limitless and constant change.. long periods of 'stasis' are cited for such creatures as crocodiles simply because their fossils cover a theoretical 200 million years.. However other fossil deposits demand very 'rapid' evolutionary change. The problem is the science is vague and accords more with convenient storytelling.
Human beings are described as having opted out of evolution.. But it was not so long ago black indigenous native people were considered less than human, primitive savages in evolutionary terms. Certainly Charles Darwin expressed this opinion and thought they would eventually die out.
The question is how does a system of continuous change produce a living kingdom which conforms to an enduring classification system of distinct types with identifiable groupings. The original idea actually came from the bible.. by a creationist (like all theists of his day) and it is still with us! Carl Linnaeus was the first to create the binomial naming system of classification.. its changed but his classification of large animals remains essentially unchanged.
Species is an inadequate term to talk about immutability but at the higher family level it accords rather well with the bible's use of the word 'kind'. Creatures reproduce after their kind and the flesh of one kind is different to the flesh of another kind.. accords well with observation and the Law of Biogenesis..
"Pasteur demonstrated that fermentation is caused by the growth of micro-organisms, and the emergent growth of bacteria in nutrient broths is due not to spontaneous generation, but rather to biogenesis (Omne vivum ex vivo "all life from life")." [from Wikipedia article Louis Pasteur]
must move on..
The evolutionary algorithm is a theory of limitless and constant change.. long periods of 'stasis' are cited for such creatures as crocodiles simply because their fossils cover a theoretical 200 million years.. However other fossil deposits demand very 'rapid' evolutionary change. The problem is the science is vague and accords more with convenient storytelling.
Human beings are described as having opted out of evolution.. But it was not so long ago black indigenous native people were considered less than human, primitive savages in evolutionary terms. Certainly Charles Darwin expressed this opinion and thought they would eventually die out.
The question is how does a system of continuous change produce a living kingdom which conforms to an enduring classification system of distinct types with identifiable groupings. The original idea actually came from the bible.. by a creationist (like all theists of his day) and it is still with us! Carl Linnaeus was the first to create the binomial naming system of classification.. its changed but his classification of large animals remains essentially unchanged.
Species is an inadequate term to talk about immutability but at the higher family level it accords rather well with the bible's use of the word 'kind'. Creatures reproduce after their kind and the flesh of one kind is different to the flesh of another kind.. accords well with observation and the Law of Biogenesis..
"Pasteur demonstrated that fermentation is caused by the growth of micro-organisms, and the emergent growth of bacteria in nutrient broths is due not to spontaneous generation, but rather to biogenesis (Omne vivum ex vivo "all life from life")." [from Wikipedia article Louis Pasteur]
must move on..
Apppendix 3.1 Evolutionary Predictions
All good scientific theories make predictions which are crucial to the verification of the truth of the theory and evolution is no exception. Again there are at least three I am a ware of..
(1) The Occurrence of Beneficial Mutations
Since it is just too improbable for a mutation or series of mutations to occur precisely when they are needed by a change in say the environment or food supply or predators etc. It is postulated that these accumulate in waiting as neutral or non fatal mutations which become available when the system is driven out of its previously stable pattern.
Unfortunately studies of mutations to date have not turned up anything remotely like what would be required to actually make evolution a possibility. The vast majority of mutations are neutral or of very small effect thanks to the redundancy built into DNA and the double helix. The elaborate proof reading and error correcting mechanism plays a vital role in verification of the copy and last but not least.. the biblical command to not marry your close relatives.. also practised in nature by larger animals.
Dr Lee Spetner in "Not By Chance" a graduate in both mathematics and genetics does a calculation of the required number of 'favourable' mutations required to meet the evolutionary requirement for a creature like the horse. Its of the order of 2 million!
Confirmation comes from the research like Motoo Kimura.. Kimura's data shows beneficial mutations as so rare to be not measurable. and from research in the Wikipedia "Out of all mutations, 39.6% were lethal, 31.2% were non-lethal deleterious, and 27.1% were neutral.". One often cited beneficial mutation called "Sickle Cell" gives resistance to Malaria but itself is ultimately shortens life expectancy?
The data clearly does not support this prediction..
(1) The Occurrence of Beneficial Mutations
Since it is just too improbable for a mutation or series of mutations to occur precisely when they are needed by a change in say the environment or food supply or predators etc. It is postulated that these accumulate in waiting as neutral or non fatal mutations which become available when the system is driven out of its previously stable pattern.
Unfortunately studies of mutations to date have not turned up anything remotely like what would be required to actually make evolution a possibility. The vast majority of mutations are neutral or of very small effect thanks to the redundancy built into DNA and the double helix. The elaborate proof reading and error correcting mechanism plays a vital role in verification of the copy and last but not least.. the biblical command to not marry your close relatives.. also practised in nature by larger animals.
Dr Lee Spetner in "Not By Chance" a graduate in both mathematics and genetics does a calculation of the required number of 'favourable' mutations required to meet the evolutionary requirement for a creature like the horse. Its of the order of 2 million!
Confirmation comes from the research like Motoo Kimura.. Kimura's data shows beneficial mutations as so rare to be not measurable. and from research in the Wikipedia "Out of all mutations, 39.6% were lethal, 31.2% were non-lethal deleterious, and 27.1% were neutral.". One often cited beneficial mutation called "Sickle Cell" gives resistance to Malaria but itself is ultimately shortens life expectancy?
The data clearly does not support this prediction..
Appendix 2.4 Evolutionary Assumptions
(3) Physical Assumption
The physical assumption inherent in the evolutionary algorithm is that you can naturally increase complexity because natural selection gets around the Second Law..
The tactic has been to avoid a clear definition of the word 'complexity'.. ignorance at work. (go on.. have a look for the definition)..
Ludwig Boltzmann, Willard Gibbs and Max Plank put a scale on the axis of complexity for any state of matter..
COMPLEXITY = IMPROBABILITY
The Second Law requirement for any large system that the absolute entropy cannot naturally decrease means improbability cannot increase which means complexity cannot increase over time. Inconsistent with evolution but consistent with all observations, simulations and honest calculations.
Natural selection is just that, SELECTION of what has already been produced by random mutation and therefore cannot effect or provide any direction to those mutations.
The essence of my falsification is the application of the second law to the evolution of semantic information as encoded in DNA.. but it equally applies to the physical state.
Physical 'Design' is another word left without proper definition. We even have R Dawkins inventing 'designoid' (appearance of design with purpose but not purposeful).. without first defining 'design' upon which it is based!
DESIGN = A FUNCTIONAL STATE OF MATTER
Only a mind can conceive of a need for a function.. purpose is therefore implicit. If it has a purpose then by definition it is a design.. Like eyes, ears, muscles, feathers, bicycle chains, teapots and elephants..
Occam's Razor required..
The physical assumption inherent in the evolutionary algorithm is that you can naturally increase complexity because natural selection gets around the Second Law..
The tactic has been to avoid a clear definition of the word 'complexity'.. ignorance at work. (go on.. have a look for the definition)..
Ludwig Boltzmann, Willard Gibbs and Max Plank put a scale on the axis of complexity for any state of matter..
COMPLEXITY = IMPROBABILITY
The Second Law requirement for any large system that the absolute entropy cannot naturally decrease means improbability cannot increase which means complexity cannot increase over time. Inconsistent with evolution but consistent with all observations, simulations and honest calculations.
Natural selection is just that, SELECTION of what has already been produced by random mutation and therefore cannot effect or provide any direction to those mutations.
The essence of my falsification is the application of the second law to the evolution of semantic information as encoded in DNA.. but it equally applies to the physical state.
Physical 'Design' is another word left without proper definition. We even have R Dawkins inventing 'designoid' (appearance of design with purpose but not purposeful).. without first defining 'design' upon which it is based!
DESIGN = A FUNCTIONAL STATE OF MATTER
Only a mind can conceive of a need for a function.. purpose is therefore implicit. If it has a purpose then by definition it is a design.. Like eyes, ears, muscles, feathers, bicycle chains, teapots and elephants..
Occam's Razor required..
Appendix 2.3 Evolutionary Assumptions
It's a pity Michael Behe of 'Intelligent Design' fame is only a biologist.. because, like Richard Dawkins they're both ignorant of technology.. You need to do a serious course in Engineering for that. Technology means functional design and though not all designs are machines they do all have a purpose..
So Michael Behe calls a 'machine' or 'design'; "Irreducibly Complex"..
That is not a good description because almost any machine can be shown to be reducible to some minor degree without destroying its capacity to do the function.. I think he qualifies 'reducible' to mean the complete loss of an essential component.. but its not rigorous.
The reason you can reduce any machine by a small amount is simply the fact that we cannot build machines to anything approaching optimum. An optimum machine or structure has all failure modes occur at the same time. That is nothing to do with over design due to safety factors. It's over-design due to our imperfect knowledge, imperfect material quality and imperfect manufacturing processes.
A better description for any piece of technology (design) is..
A FUNCTIONALLY COMPLEX STATE OF MATTER.
All technology (design) satisfies this definition..
and has the following characteristics..
(a) It is SPECIFIED by semantic information
(this is the design part)
(b) It is ISOLATED from all other machines..
(where the design is not controlled by standards)
(c) It is internally INTEGRATED..
(the parts work together)
(d) Performs a FUNCTION (none of the parts can do)
(the whole is more than the sum of the parts)
(e) It has a PURPOSE
(meets a need)
All technology is therefore the product of a rational MIND.because only a rational mind can express a need.
Moving on..
So Michael Behe calls a 'machine' or 'design'; "Irreducibly Complex"..
That is not a good description because almost any machine can be shown to be reducible to some minor degree without destroying its capacity to do the function.. I think he qualifies 'reducible' to mean the complete loss of an essential component.. but its not rigorous.
The reason you can reduce any machine by a small amount is simply the fact that we cannot build machines to anything approaching optimum. An optimum machine or structure has all failure modes occur at the same time. That is nothing to do with over design due to safety factors. It's over-design due to our imperfect knowledge, imperfect material quality and imperfect manufacturing processes.
A better description for any piece of technology (design) is..
A FUNCTIONALLY COMPLEX STATE OF MATTER.
All technology (design) satisfies this definition..
and has the following characteristics..
(a) It is SPECIFIED by semantic information
(this is the design part)
(b) It is ISOLATED from all other machines..
(where the design is not controlled by standards)
(c) It is internally INTEGRATED..
(the parts work together)
(d) Performs a FUNCTION (none of the parts can do)
(the whole is more than the sum of the parts)
(e) It has a PURPOSE
(meets a need)
All technology is therefore the product of a rational MIND.because only a rational mind can express a need.
Moving on..
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Appendix 2.2 Evolutionary Assumptions
(2) Technological Assumption
The evolutionary algorithm must assume that for all evolved forms there exists an unbroken chain of changes going all the way back to its origin. Each one having a small but statistically significant selective advantage for survival over its predecessor.
Not only does the evolutionary algorithm assume such a chain exists but the requirement for a selective survival advantage at each stage also precludes the change from being 'infinitesimally small' or even just small.
The simplest and most obvious impasse to this assumption is in the direct comparison of biotechnology with human technology where they are functionally the same. So we may compare the design of the bacterial flagella motor to an ordinary electric motor. Both have the following component parts..
Case housing two sets of bearings, a lubricant and lubrication system, a stator providing a variable 'poled' magnetic field, an armature with complimentary magnetic poles with a precise phase relationship to the stator, electrical connections conforming to a workable circuit producing the required poles, an adequate power source for the required task, a fully reversible, variable speed control circuit and lastly a functional output device to perform the task for which the motor was designed.
We KNOW and can say with confidence.. such a machine CANNOT be designed and constructed incrementally in some hypothetical series of small steps where each step..
(a) Has a useful function.. which part do you make first and what does it do? and..
(b) Gets progressively better after each step at performing the same function.
If the function of one stage is different from that of its predecessor then you have effectively multiplied the problem.. What replaces it in its former function and what was performing the new function before the change? Or are we to suppose the requirement for both functions changed simultaneously at the moment a random mutation miraculously occurred to provide a solution??
a bit more on this one..
The evolutionary algorithm must assume that for all evolved forms there exists an unbroken chain of changes going all the way back to its origin. Each one having a small but statistically significant selective advantage for survival over its predecessor.
Not only does the evolutionary algorithm assume such a chain exists but the requirement for a selective survival advantage at each stage also precludes the change from being 'infinitesimally small' or even just small.
The simplest and most obvious impasse to this assumption is in the direct comparison of biotechnology with human technology where they are functionally the same. So we may compare the design of the bacterial flagella motor to an ordinary electric motor. Both have the following component parts..
Case housing two sets of bearings, a lubricant and lubrication system, a stator providing a variable 'poled' magnetic field, an armature with complimentary magnetic poles with a precise phase relationship to the stator, electrical connections conforming to a workable circuit producing the required poles, an adequate power source for the required task, a fully reversible, variable speed control circuit and lastly a functional output device to perform the task for which the motor was designed.
We KNOW and can say with confidence.. such a machine CANNOT be designed and constructed incrementally in some hypothetical series of small steps where each step..
(a) Has a useful function.. which part do you make first and what does it do? and..
(b) Gets progressively better after each step at performing the same function.
If the function of one stage is different from that of its predecessor then you have effectively multiplied the problem.. What replaces it in its former function and what was performing the new function before the change? Or are we to suppose the requirement for both functions changed simultaneously at the moment a random mutation miraculously occurred to provide a solution??
a bit more on this one..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)