I had a student who wanted to know, and we had this discussion about it,
Rodney
Help Me Understand the Evolutionary Theory.
Dr. Bill
Be glad to help, if I can.
Rodney
“Big Bang?” Something from nothing?
Dr. Bill
No, something from a singularity, in this case, a point in space where all known mass collected and is under tremendous compression, and of such immense gravity that space-time is folded over onto itself.
Rodney
EVERYTHING developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen ( and some helium) gas?
Dr. Bill
Actually, that would be Hydrogen, helium, lithium, and deuterium.
Rodney
Where did this energy/matter come from?
Dr. Bill
All of this matter was contained within the singularity.
Rodney
How reasonable is it to assume that it came into being from nothing?
Dr. Bill
Mass cannot be created, or destroyed, it can only change from one form to another.
Rodney
And even if it did come into existence in this manner, what would cause it to explode?
Dr. Bill
No one knows for sure, but how about compression ignition as a logical guess.
Rodney
Seems like it would be easier to believe in God and His supernatural Creative days, wouldn’t it? (Its a question)
Dr. Bill
Yes it would, but some people think that gravity can be explained by just saying the world sucks. I try to strive for the most accurate answer, even if it is not the easy answer.
Rodney
Scientifically (even in the high school lecture) aren’t explosions considered destructive and leading to disorder?
Dr. Bill
It has always been easier to destroy than create. The explosions created by man have always been used for destructive reasons, making data only for destructive research. As far as order, this is a man made idea. You must define what you consider order. In the case of the big bang, it did in fact create order, if by order you mean the equal distribution of matter within the universe.
Rodney
How reasonable is it to assume that a “Big Bang” explosion produced the opposite effect – increasing “information”, order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars, and planets and eventually people? Seems contrary to elementary scientific principles, doesn’t it?
Dr. Bill
Information by definition is knowledge, the knowledge has always been there, waiting for someone to find it. The scientific principles are in fact being followed, they have to be as we wrote the laws, theories. And principles to fit the facts.
Rodney
Did fundamental physical laws, like electromagnetic forces, gravity and conservation of mass and energy develop by themselves?
Dr. Bill
They did not develop at all. They were always there waiting to be discovered.
Rodney
How reasonable is it to assume that these great controlling principles developed by accident?
Dr. Bill
They were not an accident, the interrelation of matter and mass have and always will be consistent. The only thing we did was to write a series of principles and laws to fit the universal conditions we were observing. If the condition would have been different, the principles would have been written to fit them. If we lived on Thaus in the Gaylon galaxy, our laws would fit the conditions there.
Rodney
When can we receive order from disorder? Doesn’t the Second Law of Thermodynamics state that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order?
Dr. Bill
First of all, order is a man-made idea, second, yes the law of thermodynamics does say that disorder increases over time. If the universe was in thermodynamic order, life of any sort could not survive. We would have a block containing all the oxygen over there, and all the hydrogen over there, so on and so forth. There would be no such thing as water, because the components would be in separate places never able to blend, as this would be disorder. The universal order of things is equal distribution of matter, therefore allowing for complex atoms to develop.
Rodney
Don’t evolutionists say the opposite has taken place – that order increased over time – without any directed energy? How can this be?
Dr. Bill
Uniform distribution of matter can, and often is seen as order by some, and disorder by others. Many of the truths we cling to are greatly dependent to your point of view.
Rodney
Does information spring from randomness? Doesn’t Information theory state that “information or data” never arises out of randomness or chance events? Doesn’t our human experience verify this every day? How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man, be accounted for? Isn’t information always introduced from the outside?
Dr. Bill
Depends on the definition of randomness you use. There is information arising from every bit of matter, regardless of it’s size or complexity. There never can be information about an event, there can only be information about how the event effected the things around it. Suppose that your child is competing in a race at school and wins, the moment of winning has passed. You cannot gather any information from this event, but you can gather how the event of winning his effected your child, and the effect of not winning effected the others.
Rodney
Isn’t it impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information or “meaning”, which is what evolutionists say has happened?
Dr. Bill
There is nothing that is impossible.
Rodney
Doesn’t generation of information always require intelligence?
Dr. Bill
No, it only takes intelligence to acquire, analyze, and understand the information. Remember the old question “If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there, does it make sound?”. We have the unique gift of understanding, if we did not have this gift, wouldn’t the information still be the same, even if no one is there to understand it? The pre-human creatures were subject to the laws of physics before humans came along to discover and recorded them.
Rodney
How is it then, that evolutionist claim that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being, whose many systems contain vast amounts of information?
Dr. Bill
If you mix flour and water and eggs, you get noodles. There is no intelligence in any of these ingredients to tell them to make noodles. And there was not a need for intelligence when two enzymes bonded for the first time in the primordial ooze. That is not to say there was not an intelligence, urging them to combine, but life was formed regardless of the reason be it guided or random.
Rodney
In the lab, does life spring from dead chemicals?
Dr. Bill
While it is true that we cannot yet create life from lifelessness, that does not mean it cannot be done, only that we do not know how to do it.
Rodney
Given a proper length of time, will stored lighter fluid transform into milk?
Dr. Bill
No, it does not contain the proper elements to produce milk, while metamorphosis is possible, the proper ingredients must be contained in the primary substance. But Given a proper length of time, milk will turn into cottage cheese.
Rodney
Don’t evolutionists claim that life formed from “dead chemicals or so-called “abiogenesis” even though it is a biological law (“biogenesis”) that life only comes from life? Is it true what I heard that the probability of even the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals is essentially zero or, much less chance than one in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit into the entire universe? Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself? It’s an honest question, isn’t it? Wouldn’t it require less faith to believe that God created it all?
Dr. Bill
Yes it would require less faith to just believe God did it, it is also easier to know that Dr. Jones can do heart transplants, than to know how he does them. ” From dust you came…” sound familiar? Is this not life from dead chemicals. And the odds being near zero are not zero. Maybe we will never discover the secret of creating life, but the knowledge is there for the discovery. It may be that God has this knowledge and has no intention of sharing, but our Meir existence is proof that at some point life did in fact start.
Rodney
Where are the transitional fossils? If evolution has taken place, shouldn’t our museums be overflowing with countless transitional fossils? And, of the very, very few number of transitional fossil candidates which are touted as proof of evolution, why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most being nearly identical to current instances of species.
Dr. Bill
Just because we have not found a select set of fossil remains, does not in fact mean they do not exist. The fact that there have been thousands of damaged and incomplete fossils found shows that even fossils decay to dust given enough time. unfortunately, these species were not courteous enough to die where we could easily find them.
Rodney
Why is it then, that in over 100 years of searching, we haven’t uncovered millions of transitional fossils? And of the few “transitional” examples which are offered, why do evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or a skull? If I am going to learn how this creature changed over time, shouldn’t I see the entire anatomy?
Dr. Bill
Why do you expect that we would find several million years of fossils in a hundred year time frame. When the scientist show one bone in its transitional state, it is that they are showing how that part of the animal changed. Most evolution is due to adapting, and not all the parts of an animal needed to change. Sometimes the complete remains were not at the site to be examined. Most death in the distant past was due to being at the wrong place in the food chain. The bones were scattered as they were carried off so the meat attached could be consumed.
Rodney
Doesn’t continued existence (reproduction) of a cell require both DNA (the plan) and RNA (the “copy” mechanism) both of which are tremendously complex? If so, how reasonable is it to assume that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance, at exactly the same time? Wouldn’t it be simpler to believe that God, the Master Intelligence, created man in His own image?
Dr. Bill
These are only two of many things that are needed for reproduction. They may have come into being together, or they may have evolved to there present state. There are single cell animals that reproduce, it may be that the life forms we are familiar with evolved from these simple cells. After all they have had millions of years to evolve. Humans have been breeding and reproducing long before we knew about how the mechanics worked, or knew of the existence of DNA. It is easier to just accept that God did it, but that does not answer the question of how it was done.
Rodney
Doesn’t evolution require the transition from one kind to another to be gradual? Isn’t “natural selection” supposed to retain those individuals that have developed an advantage of some sort? Question is, how could an animal intermediate i.e. between one kind and another even survive? Further, why would a mutation of this type ever be selected, when it would not be well-suited to either its old or it’s new environment?
Dr. Bill
Whoa! What about eohippus, mesohippos, parahippus, equus, pliopithicus, Australopithecus africanus, not to mention Neanderthal man, and cro-magnon man. Evolution does not have to be over a long period of time. There are some African frogs, that have the ability to change from one sex to another in a single sex environment. An evolution that takes weeks, not eons or even years. Transition from one kind to another in most cases keep pace with the changes of the environment. The changes that were adapted to did not occur instantaneously, giving the animal time to change. Natural selection would kill off the one who could not adapt, and therefor removed them from the gene pool. This left those that could adjust to the new environment. The changes can be monitored even today, the mutations that are less than acceptable are referred to as birth defects. And even as civilized as we claim to be, those with the attributes we find offensive, we do not allow to reproduce. A good example of this is in the domesticated dogs we use as pets. We select what dogs will breed and what dogs will not. And we breed these dogs to get the puppies with the attributes we want. You wont see a champion cocker spaniel being mated with anything but another cocker.
Rodney
How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce?
Dr. Bill
The ability to reproduce evolved by how the process took place. The more efficient breeder would procreate, and the others would die out. With out the ability, or less ability the lessor lifeforms would eventually die out, in favor of the new lifeforms that could reproduce .
Rodney
Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen?
Dr. Bill
Yes, I can.
Rodney
And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Wouldn’t asexual reproduction seem to be more likely and efficient?
Dr. Bill
Two sexes are far more efficient when it comes to selecting mates that have the qualities to improve the species. This is part of the reason we are attracted to some people and not to others.
Rodney
Do you believe what the reformed evolutionist Henry Morris said when he stated: “Many… believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a fact and, therefore, it must be accepted….. In recent years a great many people…. having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists.” Do you think this is an accurate statement and why?
Dr. Bill
Many people believe in evolution, many do not. There is a mountain of proof that evolution has occurred (and still does), this makes it an undeniable fact. The science of evolution is not an exact science to the point that they do not have all the answers. I would consider the possibility that there are more than one correct answer to the question. Given all the facts, and theories, could it be that both are right? All major religions speak of a Deity creating everything, and yet, none of them go into the mechanics of how this would be accomplished. What if it was the finger of God that stirred the primordial ooze, allowing the two enzymes to blend together forming the first essence of life and the beginning of evolution started according to God’s plan. God could have selected undesirable creatures for extinction (dinosaurs), and others for a loftier pursuit (mankind). But above all it is important to remember that we do not have all the answers, and part of our own evolving is the search for answers, and enlightenment so we can pass the knowledge to our children, who will pass it to their children. We do not have to limit our thirst for knowledge to only one belief system. We can explore many possibilities, and have a larger view of life, and its wonders.
Rodney
Thanks for your kind help.
Dr. Bill
I hope this has given some insight, some food for thought and made your world a little bigger.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
