Spiritual Blogs

It is sometimes argued that Darwinism violates the second law of thermodynamics which states that a thermodynamic system can only change from 'order' to 'chaos'. However the proponents do not articulate well what might be in their intuitions. This, of course, allows Darwinists to present an apparently convincing counter argument about how the solar system is supposedly 'open'. Here, I am going to hopefully guide you step by step into a deeper understanding of the second law so you may see that the argument against darwinism is actually irrefutable!

DEFINE RANDOM
Here, we understand 'random' in contrast with 'directed'. Lets begine by exemplifying 'random' and 'directed' using an object acted upon by external forces. If an objet is forced to move in a random direction, then it is equaly likely for the object to move westward , as it is to for it to move eastward, as it is to move northward, as it is to move southward. If it is more likely for an object to move eastward, then such a motion towards east cannot be 'random'. On the contrary it is DIRECTED towards east. So I contrast 'randomness' with 'directedness'. The out come of a die throwing is random because it is equaly likely to get any face. If it is more likely to get '1', then such a throw is not 'random'. On the contrary, it is 'directed towards' '1'.

THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM

A system in thermodynamic equilibrium cannot change. 'Change' here is 'the transfer of energy from one part to another'. So, for instance, there is no transfer of energy anywhere within an object with uniform temperature. Energy can only be transferred from a hot place to a cold place. This is the better statement of the second law. We will latter see that Darwinism actually demands a 'transfer of energy from one part to another within a system that is in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium'. Their objection that 'but the solar system is not in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium' Begs the question that their theory already implies a correct understanding of this fact that 'the solar system is not in a thermodynamic equilibrium'. I will show you that this is not the case!

Darwinists already implicitly and unwittingly claim that 'the earth was in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium'!! In a different word, the Darwinists, as usual, equates their theory with 'naturalistic explanation' or even with 'science' so that 'if science can allow life to form' then it means 'Darwinism is possible/true'! This Darwinian objection is actually a fallacious argument that rely solely on the fact that the oponent of Darwinism is almost always the one trying to argue that 'there is no naturalistic explanation of the origin of life' in general, rather than simply attacking Darwinism SPECIFICALLY without insisting that GENERALLY, there is no possible scientific account for evolution.

But why can't there be a 'change' in a system in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium? To understand it, think of an inflated ball. Such is an example of a system in thermodynamic equilibrium. Think of a single air molecule say at the centre of the ball. The molecule is constantly knocked by other molecules in the neighbourhood. The crucial point is that such a collision is RANDOM, meaning that it is as likely for the molecule to be knocked in any one direction as it is, to be knocked in any other direction. If it is equally likely for a molecule to be knocked in ANY direction, towards ANY direction, then given numerous particles acting on the molecule, the molecule will, most likely, end up nowhere. It will only keep darting back and forth towards all directions as it keep getting knocked from all directions. The same thing happens to all the molecules in the ball. So there will be no bulk motion of molecules in any way.

Now what if it is more likely for a molecule to be knocked westwards than to be knocked at any other direction? Then it will be knocked towards west more often than it is, towards any other direction. Such a molecule will eventually move steadily towards west. So the general rule is that a molecule will move towards a given direction if and only if it is more likely to be forced towards that direction than it is, towards any other direction. Therefore random forces (in this case knockings) cannot lead to a directed movement, and this is the principle behind the second law of thermodynamics. In a system with numerous particles, the particles cannot move towards a direction that is more likely to be forced away from. So the particles in the system must keep moving until it becomes equally likely for any particle to be knocked in one way as it is, to be knocked in any other way. It is this state that they call it 'a state of maximum entropy'. So they call a state of much directedness 'low entropy', but it is because you need 'few sentences' to describe such. If every molecule is moving eastwards, then we simply say 'all particles are moving eastwards' and such a system appears 'orderly' but if each particle is moving in its own direction, then we must describe each motion in details and such a system apears 'disoderly'.

Now let us generalize 'knocking' to the concept 'cause', and 'move' to the concept 'change'. Then when we talk of 'random changes in DNA' (mutation), then you see immediately that the reasoning above applies exellently to the issue! Specifically, you can now understand what I mean when I say Darwinists unwittingly insinuates that the system surrounding a DNA is in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium! A DNA acted upon by random forces is in EQUILIBRIUM for all the relevant purposes of a comparison between the system and a thermodynamic system. The argument that 'but the solar system is not in equilibrium' is irrelevant to the issue! The Darwinist model begins at equilibrium, thats all what is relevant! Darwinian fallacy is to equate their, possibly sureal scenario with the actual condition of the solar system, and then say 'but tye solar system is not in equilibrium'. Hallo Darwinian 'soup' is not the solar system!

So the argument against Darwinism goes: if something, such as DNA, is in a system which is as likely to cause it to change in one way as it is, to cause it to change in any other way (ie with causes acting randomly at the thing) then such a thing cannot significantly change at all! It can only slightly change back and forth. In case of random mutations, it can only mutates this way, that way this way,..ie in a completely disorganized way, never steadily as if towards a certain goal! The second lawvof thermodynamics is just a special case of this statement that follows logically from the concept of 'random' vs 'directed'. causes.

NATURAL SELECTION IS A VEIN UNWITTING IMMITATION OF MAXWELL'S DEMON

Now, what if a 'demon' sits somewhere to 'select' only those particles that moves in a given direction. Will he eventually beat the second law of thermodynamics. Or I can ask 'can SELECTION beat the second law of thermodynamics, making an object move towards an otherwise unlikely direction? Perhaps Maxwell's demon can do that, but as I will show you next, natural selection is not equivalent to Maxwell's demon! It is simply not 'that smart'!

In dead we could still create steady changes in the DNA if we could 'select' those specific changes we desire, from a junk of zillions of unwanted changes. But does natural 'selection' actually select? The answer is no, because a thus selected DNA is still subject to random changes. For the Maxwell's Demon to truely select, it must prevent the 'undoing'. He must prevent the particle from moving in all the other directions apart from the desired one. This is a feature that natural 'selection' lacks. If a DNA mutates 'this way' and this way of mutating makes it more likely to reproduce, nothing after such a 'selection' prevents the DNA from changing backwards or changing in any other numerous undesired ways! The room that gives the DNA a chance to make a change in a 'desired' way also gives it an even more imence chance for the thus slightly improved DNA to be destroyed almost as fast as the 'positive' changes are made! Natural 'selection' does not change this fact!

One of the big blunder Darwinists make in their thinking is to seem to assume that the only thing that can remove a gene from the 'ecosystem' is for it to be 'selected away'! Specifically they overlook the most destructive destroyer of genes if 'measures are not taken', ie the very mutation itself! The cells have tight mechanisms for preventing mutations. If you removed this mechanism, then the genes will be destroyed in a single generation! Natural selection cannot even SUSTAIN a gene, let alone 'improve' it, if the cell far from trying to prevent mutations, welcomes it in the hope of 'improving' the gene! This is because there are vastly more ways of destroying a gene than of 'improving' it or even 'preserving' it! What will it stop a species from getting extinct way before the zillionth benefitial mutation happens to one of them, if mutations are happening regularly?

Again the analogy of thermodynamic system is apt in grasping this. The reason why a molecule inside an inflated ball can never move steadily towards any particular direction is that every time it tries to move that way, soon it is knocked to another direction, and eventually backwards. So it ends up darting aimlessly round and round. Mutations in DNA is no different! For every change in a certain manner, there is a change in another manner, and eventually a change back to square 1. Natural selection does not change this as it does not PREVENT reverse mutations. It only PRESEVE the 'foward' mutation. It is like allowing a given particle that moves in a certain direction, which can never lead to a steady motion of that particle towards that direction unless you PREVENT it from moving in any other directions!