DARWIN\u2019S THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS INCONSISTENT WITH PHYSICS<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Darwin, like Neo-Darwinists today, believed the entirety of creation, including all life and the creation of humans, occurred by the chance conglomeration of particles, which then became complex enough to be acted upon by random mutations. But is this plausible? Do physics, chemistry and mathematics support this hypothesis? From my perspective as a physician and lifelong study, I unequivocally say no. Similarly, a physicist with a mathematical perspective has interesting input on biological life that does not support Darwin\u2019s theory. In 1944, Erwin Schr\u00f6dinger gave lectures that were compiled into a book on topic of biological life, and despite being nearly 80 years old, is still worth reading today.<\/p>\n
Erwin Schr\u00f6dinger, the creator of Schr\u00f6dinger\u2019s equation\u2014which is fundamental to quantum mechanics\u2014published a book in 1944 entitled What is Life? & Mind and Matter <\/em>(Cambridge, 1944). I will examine his book and focus on the chapters in which he discusses: 1) Physics and Biology, 2) Complexity of Molecules, 3) Randomness and lastly, 4) Entropy.<\/p>\n PHYSICS AND BIOLOGY<\/p>\n Chapter 1: \u201cThe Classical Physicist\u2019s Approach to the Subject.\u201d<\/p>\n Schr\u00f6dinger asks the question, \u201cHow can the events in space and time <\/em>which take place within the spatial boundary of a living organism be accounted for by physics and chemistry?\u201d[1]<\/a> His response was that physics and chemistry cannot.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n In an attempt to reassure his audience that he would not be using mathematical deductions in his lectures, Schr\u00f6dinger makes a statement that is in direct opposition to Richard Dawkins, the celebrated atheist, who makes the following statement about biology and evolution, \u201cDarwinism, unlike \u2018Einsteinsim,\u2019 seems to be regarded as fair game for critics with any degree of ignorance . . . [Darwinism] is indeed a remarkably simple theory . . .\u201d[3]<\/a> If the creation of life is that simple, then why are anatomy, physiology, molecular biology, molecular genetics and other sciences needed to understand the human body so extraordinarily complex?<\/p>\n Like most of us, Schr\u00f6dinger takes a less simplistic view. He believes, \u201c[The reason for not using mathematical deduction] was not that the subject was simple enough to be explained without mathematics, but rather that it was much too involved to be fully accessible to mathematics.\u201d[4]<\/a> Schr\u00f6dinger and Dawkins\u2019 perspectives could not be further apart on the spectrum of complexity. Something that is too complex for mathematics is rather frightening, not simple.<\/p>\n In 1944, well before Watson and Crick discover DNA, Schr\u00f6dinger presciently writes that a chromosome is essentially an aperiodic crystal, <\/em>whereas physics deals only with periodic crystals,[5]<\/a> and therefore, we humans just may not have the knowledge to comprehend the complexity of the human brain. Schr\u00f6dinger explains that, \u201cthe working of an organism requires exact physical laws.\u201d[6]<\/a> However, he states that subjective events, i.e. how we feel, think and perceive, is such a complicated process that, \u201cit lies outside the range of natural science and very probably of human understanding altogether.\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n Let\u2019s compare this to Richard Dawkins who amazingly has solved the mystery of life. In his book The Blind Watchmaker <\/em>(Norton, 1996), Dawkins tells us what Schr\u00f6dinger cannot. In Dawkins\u2019 own words, \u201cThis book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it . . .\u201d[8]<\/a> This is cringeworthy.<\/p>\n COMPLEXITY OF MOLECULES<\/p>\n Chapter 2: \u201cThe Hereditary Mechanism.\u201d<\/p>\n Schr\u00f6dinger views biology from a statistical perspective (as he does quantum physics.) He notes that having astronomically large numbers of atoms is requisite for proper functioning of physical laws\u2014too few atoms and random events will make physical laws unpredictable. In this chapter Schr\u00f6dinger presents a conundrum. [physical laws require large numbers of atoms, but molecular biology provides small numbers of atoms.]<\/p>\n Having just argued that huge numbers of atoms are required for physical laws, Schr\u00f6dinger now notes that genes, which are about a million or a few million atoms are, \u201cmuch too small . . . to entail an orderly and lawful behaviour according to statistical physics\u2014and that means according to physics.\u201d[9]<\/a> This has profound implications for Schr\u00f6dinger who uses proteins as an example of this conundrum (remember DNA was not yet discovered.) Schr\u00f6dinger exclaims, \u201c[A gene] is probably a large protein molecule, in which every atom, every radical, every heterocyclic ring plays an individual role, more or less different from that played by any of the other similar atoms, radicals, or rings.\u201d[10]<\/a><\/p>\n Next, Schr\u00f6dinger discusses hereditary mechanisms and notes, \u201cBut the term code-script is, of course, too narrow. The chromosome structures are at the same time instrumental in bringing about the development they foreshadow. They are law-code and executive power\u2014or, to use another simile, they are architect\u2019s plan and builder\u2019s craft\u2014in one.\u201d[11]<\/a><\/p>\n Schr\u00f6dinger observes that permanent hereditary changes occur within generations, not tens of thousands of years, and that these permanent changes are a result of two cells which unite to form the fertilized egg.[12]<\/a> Schr\u00f6dinger is impressed with biology and describes it as a biological marvel. He states, \u201cThat is a marvel\u2014than which only one is greater; one that, if intimately connected with it, yet lies on a different plane. I mean the fact that we, whose total being is entirely based on a marvelous interplay of this very kind, yet possesses the power of acquiring considerable knowledge about it. I think it possible that this knowledge may advance to little short of a complete understanding\u2014of the first marvel. The second may well be beyond human understanding.\u201d[13]<\/a><\/p>\n Let\u2019s compare Schr\u00f6dinger\u2019s view of biology with Richard Dawkins\u2019 view. On page one of his book, The Blind Watchmaker <\/em>(Norton, 1996) Dawkins emphatically states, \u201cBiology is the study of complicate things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.\u201d[14]<\/a> In other words, anyone who thinks life is complex is deluded. This is preposterous.<\/p>\n MUTATIONS<\/p>\n Chapter 3: \u201cMutations.\u201d<\/p>\n Schr\u00f6dinger makes the point, which is overlooked and incongruent with Darwin\u2019s theory that, \u201cIn order to be suitable material for the work of natural selection, mutations must be rare events, as they actually are.\u201d[15]<\/a> But Darwinists ignore the nature of mutations\u2014randomness. They then inappropriately equate natural selection with evolution. Take Darwin\u2019s finches for example. Researchers observed that during a drought birds with smaller beaks could not eat the remaining food and birds with larger beaks were therefore selected; they claim this is evidence of evolution.<\/p>\n There are two problems with this. First, This is an example of natural selection, not evolution. The researchers failed to report that when the drought resolved, birds with smaller beaks returned. Claiming that this is an example of evolution due to mutations means that mutations in the beaks occurred immediately then re-mutated immediately. This is of course nonsense.<\/p>\n Second, are we to believe that only random mutations occurred in the beaks and nowhere else in the birds\u2019 genes? This is inconsistent with randomness and with any pattern of mutations observed in science (other than those manufactured.)<\/p>\n ENTROPY<\/p>\n Chapter 6: \u201cOrder, Disorder and entropy.\u201d<\/p>\n Schr\u00f6dinger makes the interesting statement, \u201cWhat an organism feeds upon is negative entropy or, to put it less paradoxically, the essential thing in metabolism is that the organism succeeds in freeing itself from all the entropy it cannot help producing while alive.\u201d[16]<\/a> Darwinists have long dodged the problem of entropy by claiming that the Earth is an open system as opposed to a closed system, therefore, the second law of thermodynamics doesn\u2019t apply to evolution. However, they fail to acknowledge that a closed system is a theoretical fiction created to help understand the second law of thermodynamics, and that there is no such thing as a closed system. Neo-Darwinists make the ludicrous claim that because the sun shines on the Earth, entropy does not apply to the creation of life. (Please see my article on darwinscollapse.com or my book Darwin\u2019s Collapse<\/em> for a discussion of entropy.)<\/p>\n Although not attempting to create a theological discussion, Schr\u00f6dinger makes a non-materialistic statement. Commenting on life, Schr\u00f6dinger declares that a biological organism, \u201c. . . is the finest masterpiece ever achieved along the lines of the Lord\u2019s quantum mechanics.\u201d[17]<\/a><\/p>\n In conclusion, there is something beyond physics and chemistry that explains life and the creation of humans. Neo-Darwinists, like Darwin himself, claim that something else is randomness. But what\u2019s the chance of that?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Erwin Schr\u00f6dinger, What is Life? & Mind and Matter <\/em>(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1944) 1.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Id., 2.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker <\/em>(Norton, 1996) xv.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Schr\u00f6dinger, 1.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Id., 5.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> Id., 9.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> Dawkins, xiii.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Id., 32.<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> Schr\u00f6dinger, 23.<\/p>\n [12]<\/a> Id, 33.<\/p>\n [13]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n [14]<\/a> Dawkins, 1.<\/p>\n [15]<\/a> Schr\u00f6dinger, 44.<\/p>\n