WHY STATISTICAL MECHANICS NEGATES EVOLUTION
Found on Facebook by Mark Champneys
There are 3 billion base pairs in human DNA sequences. This is an arranged molecule of staggering size. The information content of DNA is rooted in the extreme improbability of those relatively few arrangements that code for life, in stark contrast to the vast number of possible sequence arrangements that are lifeless.
Typically, the evolutionist response to such fantastically improbable luck is merely to wait long enough for it to happen. Time is supposed to solve everything.
There are two concepts that inform us why this explanation, like pigs, won’t fly. Number one: the improbability is so extreme that trillions of trillions of trillions of universes wouldn’t be enough to get that lucky, even if every sub-atomic particle over every nanosecond in all these universes were a roll of the dice. There simply are not enough probabilistic resources available for that many mutations.
Point number two takes a little more explaining. Yes, in statistical mechanics luck can happen. But the freedom of movement that allowed so many iterations, or trials, invariably destroys the luck in the next instant.
Consider a thought experiment involving the air molecules of the room you are in right now. Let’s suppose we color all the O2 molecules red. (It’s approximately 20% of the total.) Now imagine that you are able to wait long enough for those red molecules to align over your head in such a way as to spell out your full name in red. So, is that “possible?” Actually, yes. Technically. However, in the next instant, what would you see? The fantastical writing in the air would vanish into randomization. That’s what.
The writing might conceivably be maintained longer if the oxygen molecules were in the solid, rather than gaseous, state, but then they wouldn’t have been able to move into position in the first place, would they. Do you see the difficulty? We need more than luck. We need luck, followed by timely preservation of the luck. Yet if we freeze the luck, there is no longer any freedom for additional luck in the future. Get it?
Enter… the rescuing device of NATURAL SELECTION. Darwin described natural selection as “the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.” A kind of ratchet. He imagined that natural selection could preserve any incredible luck that happened along. Such was the basis of his entire model. But is this true? Is natural selection a “preservative?”
The answer is a resounding NO! It is the polar opposite. Natural selection culls traits. It has no power to preserve them. The mechanism alters allele frequencies for a population by deletion, not by preservation. That’s how it works.
In our thought experiment, we might imagine natural selection to remove all the nitrogen in the room, but the red writing overhead still randomizes instantaneously. Natural selection cannot possibly preserve wildly improbable luck. And to believe that it can, is idiotic. There is simply no means of doing so. Let me say it without pulling punches. Darwin was a dope. An utter moron. And intelligent biologists seem not to have noticed. In fact, I am stunned by the blindness and wishful thinking. Natural selection is most decidedly NOT “the preservation of favored races,” but the elimination of unfavored ones.
Let’s consider yet another experiment. If we press the button on an ordinary can of compressed air, we will never see more air just rush into the can. Sure, it is possible for any given molecule to go in through the open valve. But, statistically, for every one molecule that enters, there will be vastly more that exit. The open valve gives freedom, but the freedom to go in is overwhelmed by the freedom to leave. Preservation of the inside location is thereby removed for those gas molecules in the experiment.
Air doesn’t spontaneously rush into that can, and three billion DNA base pairs will not spontaneously arrange themselves into a viable sequence (however slowly). And for exactly the same reason. Statistical mechanics.
Now then… Given that the emperor has no clothes, we see why statistical mechanics negates evolution utterly and completely. We can’t get that lucky without direction, and physics can’t preserve any tiny trace of such imaginary luck anyway. The model is void.
It always was.
Vishu Menon
Why both statistical mechanism and biological investigations support Evolution.
Oxygen and nitrogen are lifeless gas molecules. they can only arrange themselves into a pattern and go out of the pattern by themselves. Lifeless molecules may move into a vacuum near them, but do not reorganize into trained patterns.
Even the most basic life form –even if they are formed from thirty-trillions prokaryote cells have a pattern mould to fall into as determined by the pattern setting of acid blobs called the DNA . Each species of organism with prokaryote cells has a different mould to fall into (which Richard Dawkins state as copy into). If you wear a cap with a certain pattern of slots, all red balls which you might name as oxygen balls will fall into that set pattern and will never waver unless you cause mutation with a turbulent move.
Eukaryotes like ourselves are about three thousand prokaryotes arranged in preset slots. How the first set of DNA got its life form is a mystery since biologists ranging from Darwin to Richard Dawkins (not to exclude a million silently brooding scientists) who tend to presume that the first happening of a life form was a one-off affair. This is probably a fallacy; such new one-cell life formation could be happening all the time. Perhaps the sudden appearance of new kinds of viruses and bacteria could be proof of such occurrences. Once we concede that the condition today is more conducive to creation of new life forms from lifeless acids, and start looking around, Darwin’s mystery of the ‘soup’ that created the first life form will finally be solved.
Your statements like “Natural selection is most decidedly NOT “the preservation of favored races,” but the elimination of unfavored ones.” Exactly. that is what the theory of evolution states. ” The mechanism alters allele frequencies for a population by deletion.” Precisely. Your contention substantiates the theory of evolution.
3 billion base pairs of DNA are not lifeless blobs of acid – they have a basic form of life, and hence basic inclinations. A huge number of pebbles can perhaps organize themselves in a line from Shakespeare in a typhoon and soon scatter out of formation, but those many number of living cells in a flower can organize into a set pattern of petals, and colour as determined by the DNA. The question is not how living cells form such a set pattern, but however, one of the first 3 million basic pairs in the original prokaryote cell acquired a Planck-sized bit of self-awareness. That understanding will also explain how in the next stage of evolution a thousand prokaryotes organized themselves in to the first simple Eukaryotes. Thus far Evolutionists have only looked into the macroscopic evolution of life. When they formulate some kind of a quantum theory for the acid molecules that create the basic nanoscopic level of intelligence in each living cell, and in each G-CAT ‘alphabet’ of the DNA, evolution would have come full circle.
