The Undeniable Proof That Evolution Didn't Happen

Thanks to Pro for the challenge. He presents two common arguments against evolution, both arguments are wrong, but well-worth understanding. Increasing entropy Entropy is a difficult concept. A scientist explains: "It is common to think of entropy as 'disorder', but this simple analogy will lead you astray in many instances. For example, a crystal (highly ordered) may have more entropy than a solution of salt (which seems less ordered). So "disorder" is not always a good way to think of entropy. A better way to think of entropy is the probability of a system of being in a given configuration. Over time, systems will evolve into their most probable configuration -- but they may not start there, and the random motions they take may require a long time to get to the most probable configuration. The laws of physics govern what configuration is probably -- things like quantum physics and gravity determining how systems end up being." http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov... Yes, the entropy of the universe is increasing, because we believe the universe is a closed system: The second law of thermodynamics states that in general the total entropy of any system will not decrease other than by increasing the entropy of some other system. Hence, in a system isolated from its environment, the entropy of that system will tend not to decrease. http://en.wikipedia.org... The primary manifestation of that is in the expanding universe. However, it is a gross error to assume that because there is an overall increase in entropy, that there are no local deceases. The entropy of the earth may decrease, because it is not a close system. The formation of stars and galaxies increased the order in the universe on a local basis, as did the continuation to the formation of planets. New generations of life emerge despite the overall increase. Newly manufactured automobiles have more order than the iron ore from which steel is derived and the crude oil that yielded the plastics. Building any manufactured product, or a house, or a garage for the auto represents a local decrease in entropy. If Pro's argument were correct, none of these would be possible. In our solar system, the sun provides energy. Radiation and matter are sent out of the sun into the universe. That dispersal is increasing entropy. The earth receives some of the energy and uses it to drive ordering processes like life. The local decrease on earth is more than offset by the sun. That is no accident, because the sun is the source of energy. Probabilities Using events with probability 0.5, Pro computes the probability of 200 events occurring simultaneously and all coming out positive. Analogously, he is computing the chances of throwing two hundred coins at once, and having them all come up heads. That is one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion. However, in evolution mutations occur one at a time with the positive ones retained and the negative ones discarded. No organism evolves by having 200 simultaneous mutations, with failure if even one of them is not positive. The correct formulation of the problem is akin to asking “How many times must I flip a coin to accumulate a total of 200 heads?” The answer is "about 400," since on average half the flips are heads. Natural selection discards the failed mutations and keeps the positive ones. A fatally bad mutation is discarded in one mutation. Ones that are disfavored tend to die out over time, while the positive mutations are retained. In humans, negative mutations are observed as birth defects. Birth defects now occur at the rate of about 1 in 12 live births. http://www.mdch.state.mi.us... It may have been higher in the past, since diet, environment, and levels of cosmic rays affect mutation rates. If one mutation in 200 is positive, then there is one positive mutation in every 2400 births. A small human population of one million would have over 400 positive mutations per generation. A positive mutation is more difficult to observe than a negative one. Improved intelligence or sensory ability or endurance is not notable at birth, but clearly there are wide variations in human characteristics. Pro claims that positive mutations are never observed. That's not true. Selective breeding of plants and animals depends upon naturally occurring positive mutations. Chihuahuas have evolved from wolves in only 5000 years. That is fast, because the selection traits deemed positive is by humans, not by natural selection. However, Pro is suggesting that positive traits rarely occur. That's wrong, because they are observed in order to be selected by humans. Pro wasn't questioning the rate of natural selection, he was questioning the rate of positive mutations. All breeding of plants and animals depends upon positive mutations occurring naturally. Also note that there are many successful paths in evolution. Humans might have evolved with more than two eyes, or a better sense of smell, or with six fingers on each hand. The argument wrongly assumes that we should calculate the probability of arriving at exactly the human form now present. We could retain subjective consciousness characteristic of humans in any of millions of variations. There are many inadequacies in the present evolved state. The human backbone is better suited to walking on all fours; as a result something like a third of the human race has back problems. Certain blood vessels do not well withstand the pressure of an upright stance, a significant fraction of humans suffer from hemorrhoids. Anatomy Professor Neil Shubin has written a book, Your Inner Fish, about the roots of evolution traceable in humans. A reviewer summarizes, The causes of such human afflictions as obesity and heart disease and even hemorrhoids are traced to our abandoning the hunter gatherer lifestyle that humans evolved for in favour of a modern existence dominated by office work and take out food. Choking and sleep apnea are part of an evolutionary trade off made to favour the ability to speak.http://www.suite101.com... What we know as human might have been something else. Humans have only about a 2% difference in DNA from chimpanzees, with the split from a common ancestor occurring about 5.5 million years ago. http://www.onelife.com... Assuming about a 20 year generation in early times, both humans and chimps have had about 275,000 generations to each affect a 2% change, or less, from the common ancestor. --------------------------------------------- Much of Pro's argument is copied from the Institute for Creation Research, whose motto is "Biblical Accurate Certain" http://www.icr.org... The guy who wrote was not accurate.