At the time of Darwin the knowledge on nature and the Universe was quite scarce; therefore he made some hasty and erroneous conclusions. If we try to systematize and summarize the contemporary information on the surrounding world a couple of conclusions become indispensable, which are antithesis of the evolutionary formulation. Below we shall lay them down in a few points, making a short clarification on each of them:
1. One primary matter which is in a state of absolute chaos, cannot reach by chance its contemporary level of arrangement.
Scientists consider as "chaotic" those systems that are described with the aid of stochastics.[1] The discovery of the possibility for measuring the chaos parameters is taken as the third biggest achievement of the ХХ century, along with the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Examples of such systems are the turbulent streams in the atmosphere, the stormy movement of water, biologic populations, etc. Chaos in nature, however, is ordered enough and obeys specific laws, although finding them sometimes proves too complicated. Therefore, the purpose of studying the chaos is to draw the regularity in the systems, which only seem disordered and unpredictable. That is, speaking about chaos in our world should be only in relative meaning. Generally said, we could define this world as a world of harmony and organization.[2]
What will happen, though, if the so called "undetermined mutability" (after Darwin) acts at the level of fundamental constants, laws and interactions? Let us try to imagine a world, in which everything is changed in a totally chaotic way. In it some of the characteristics of the elementary particles might be constant, while others might transform permanently. For example, if the electric charge changes arbitrarily, it could take absolutely random values: +1; –1; +7/8; +14/3; –112/27, etc. The same is assumed about the mass, the spin, the magnetic moment, etc., while we should assume even qualitative (evolutionary?) transformation of particles into something different from what they are in reality.[3] The gravity law now could appear as follows:
and in a short while
then it could change into some other type, etc. (Due to the lack of durability, in that case we could not talk about laws neither).) Having in mind the delicate balance of all forces in nature, it becomes clear that at whatever metamorphosis of the interactions, everything will fall apart "before our eyes". In such a world neither any stationary or dynamic structures could be created, nor could they be stable in time. If in the matter, that builds our world, a similar "undetermined mutability" existed, it would lead to an absolute chaos, which is not capable of producing any arrangement organization whatsoever.
2. No laws that lead to spontaneous formation of the celestial systems, self-generation of life and its evolution are observed in nature. On the contrary, the available dynamic and static laws prohibit (do not allow, render absolutely incredible) those processes.[4]
It is accepted that W. Ashby in 1947 in his "General theory of systems" for the first time introduced the term "self-organization". Under self-organization, in its most common meaning is understood self-structuring, self-development, self-determination of natural systems and processes. A number of scientists think that the world has come into being and evolved along an endless chain of such processes – from the formation of atoms, stars and galaxies to the biologic and social structures. The corps of the so called complex systems sciences is formed through the combination of various ideas and approaches of the self-organization concept:
the synergetics of H. Haken;[5]
the dissipative structures of I. Prigogine;
the universal evolutionism of N. Moiseev;
the auto-poiesis of H. Maturana and F. Varela;
the hypercycles of M. Eigen;
the evolutionary concept of development of the Universe of E. Jansch;
the uniform transdisciplinary theory of E. Lazlo;
the theory of self-organization of A. Samarskii and S. Kurdyumov;
the cell theory of F. Capri, etc.
(Close to these is the theory of the determined chaos and the fractional geometry of nature of B. Mandelbrot.)
A truly conditioned arranging of the matter could be observed at the formation of the electron layers of atoms, the beautiful spatial grids of crystal bodies, Benard Cells, the putting together of viruses and a number of other phenomena in nature. For example, if a shaft of electrons is passed in a proximity to a bear nucleus of some chemical element, a part of those electrons will be kept around it and will automatically form the stable configuration of the electron shell of the atom[6]. By analogue, some assume that there might exist still undiscovered laws, which help also for the structuring of the cosmos. If that is really so, we could establish their existence quite easily. It is enough to launch the space aircrafts with arbitrary directions and speeds, and since they succeed every time to become satellites of the Sun or of some other planet, we could assume that the celestial systems are self-organizing. But the experience shows that such an ordering, alas, is not happening.[7] Also, even if we mix in a suitable solution all chemical elements that build the cells in the necessary quantities and proportions, they will not join together into a live organism. In the genetic program no possibility is discovered for saltatory ascending transmutation of the species, for instance to have chickens hatched from snake's eggs. The aforesaid points that there are not existing ordering relations, which can spontaneously organize all spheres of our world.[8]
Let us repeat once again what difficulties arise at the formation and arrangement of an astral system (Fig. 1a)). If we assume that the stars are formed in gas-dust nebulas, there is no way they could stand in orbit around a certain gravitation center and rotate around their axes, because that would breach the laws of conservation of momentum (Fig. 1b) – detailed explanation is provided in chapter III). These laws are universal, since they are valid in the classic, quantum and relativist physics. (With the nebulas hypothesis the gravity law, which is also dynamic, is broken implicitly.)
We are hardly aware of the exclusive complicatedness in the movements of the celestial bodies. Let us take for example the Moon that goes around the Earth, but together with it – around the Sun, with it – around the center of the Galaxy. And more – the Milky Way goes around the center of the Local Group, and it is already considered established that the latter, together with other galaxy clusters build a bigger formation – the cloud Hunting dogs, circling around its center. Together with several similar clouds (Virgo I, II and III, Crater, Leo II, etc.) it is included in the Local galaxies super-cluster, etc. (Fig. 2). Even for the most powerful imagination it is difficult to take in the whole variety, complexity and preciseness of the movements of each celestial body in space. How the evolutionists would explain this incredible complicatedness in the hierarchic structure of the Metagalaxy, provided that in order to achieve it the dynamic laws must be breeched all over?![9]
What is the statistical probability to have some stable cosmic system consisting of n-number celestial bodies formed by chance? Let us assume that it is the most stable when all the objects in it have optimal values of their parameters. Generally, the possibility for each member of the system to have exactly the appropriate orbital characteristics is 1/∞, and for all n-number elements – 1/∞n.[10] Even if the system has an endless number of stable configurations (at various masses, speeds, etc. of the bodies), the probability to have any one of them formed by chance is:
The aforesaid is valid also for the atoms, since the characteristics of their building elementary particles could also take an infinite number of values.[12] With live organisms the variations are limited, but in fact there appear insignificantly small, practically unfeasible probabilities to reach a structure, capable of fulfilling all vital processes. That is to say, in the pointed areas the available dynamic and statistic laws prohibit (do not allow, make it absolutely improbable) the self-arranging of the matter.
(In chapter ІІІ I have examined in detail the drawbacks of the hypothesis on the generation of the Sun system, the stars and the galaxies. Further on, I have described the difficulty of the task related to the building of a stable system of celestial bodies, which is in dynamic equilibrium (and in chapter V have made the same as regards the atoms). The last could be regarded as a new "dynamic aspect" of the anthrop principle.)
3. The intermediate states are: а) unstable – with the atomic and celestial structures, and b) non-functioning – with live organisms. That points that no evolutionary processes are possible neither in still nor in living nature.
The system is a multitude of elements that are in relations and connections between each other and form a certain unity, wholeness. All elements of the system are interdependent, i.e. each of them affects the rest, and vice versa – they also have effect on it. The structure of the system determines its internal form of ordering, i.e. it is an expression of the order existing in it. The full description of the order in the complexly organized systems is studied by a comparatively new science – taxiology (logic of order), which is being developed lately as one of the most fundamental and important logical theories. But its basic principles and categories are studied through too complicated extensional mathematic-logic and theoretic-information methods. Therefore we shall not stop over them, but will apply an extremely simplified approach, which will allow us to make conclusions regarding the possibility of an evolution of the aforementioned systems.
A principle known as "all or nothing" is valid with them. In the meaning, that the structure must be composed of suitable elements, which should be arranged in the correct order, so that the action of the system is not breached. If we change the parameters even of a single one of them, or we totally remove it, or we change places of some of the elements, etc., there will occur a disturbance in the functioning of the system, which will destroy it or take it out of use. Therefore, either everything is in line and the system functions in a normal way, or otherwise it seems that something is not in line and the system is liquidated.
This principle forbids the gradual "evolution" of one structure into another. Could a small mechanical watch gradually transform itself into a clock? Let us presume that one of its gears has grown bigger, as for a clock. Then, it will be incompatible with all the mechanisms of the small watch and the latter will not tell the time correctly or will not be able to work at all. Let the other parts also transform and become as for a clock. While one part of its mechanisms is for a small watch, and the other – for a bigger one, its function will be considerably disturbed or could not be realized at all. The watch/clock will work normally only when either all its parts are small, or all parts are big.
And what will happen if one of the parts of the watch is replaced by a computer part?[13] For example, a transistor is put in place of a gear. For sure the watch will not work now. Let us gradually replace its parts with computer parts. The function will not be realized even when we have assembled all the computer parts, and only one part was left from the watch.
From the aforesaid we could make the following conclusion: when one object is gradually transformed into another object from the same type (but differing in some way – by size, other model, etc.) the function is broken or even ceased. And when an object of one type is gradually transformed into an object of another type the function cannot be realized at all. Therefore, either "everything" is in line and the system is functioning normally, or even if one thing is not in order, it is as if "nothing" is in order and the function is broken.
Of course, the relations between the elements of the systems in nature are significantly more complicated; we have taken these examples only to illustrate the principle "all or nothing".
Analyzing fig. 3 we could make the following conclusion regarding the possibility for an "evolution" of the systems with an infinite number of values of their parameters:
Neither gradual nor saltatory ("quantum") transition of one working system into another is possible. In the first case, i.e. with a gradual transition, if one of its parameters changes its value, it will not be in accordance with its other parameters any more, and the system will get out of order. At the same time, the other system will not be fit to work until all its necessary parameters are completely built. As we have clarified, here the principle "all or nothing" applies. The second case of "quantum" (sudden) transformation is also impossible to be realized. The probability for all parameters of the system to suddenly change and to acquire exactly the necessary values of the parameters of any other functioning system is smaller than infinitely small (according to the calculations above – 1/∞n-1).
The atoms and the celestial formation are discrete structures, which represent uniform complete systems. It was already mentioned in the preceding chapters that the change of their parameters (mass of the bodies or the particles, interactions intensity, etc.) leads to their destroying. That is to say, their intermediate states are unstable, and because of that they cannot gradually evolve one into another (and the saltatory transition is impossible).[14]
As it is well known, proteins have a very important role with living creatures – they build the cell structures, perform catalytic functions, participate in the realization of the genome, etc. But they are species -specific, therefore if mutation occurs, which will lead to the formation of a different protein, its action will not be in unison with the work of the other proteins. In that way the genetic mutations impede the synchronization of the systems in the organism and for that reason, in fact, they appear harmful for the individual, i.e. they do not assist one in the fight for existence. In other words, the principle "all or nothing" does not aid the gradual evolution of organisms. There are no indications whatsoever also for the "quantum" (sudden) appearance of new species; because of that the leading authorities admit that "neither phyletic gradualism, nor punctuated equilibrium look applicable at the origin of new physical forms"[15].
From fig. 3 it is understood that God can create an infinite variety of ordered and stable worlds, but each one of them is infinitely little probable (1/∞ to some power), which precludes its origination by chance. Adding also the law for conservation of momentum, it becomes absolutely sure for our Universe that it was built through His immediate intervention. Thus we respond also to the question asked by Einstein "did God have a choice at the creation of the Universe?" which is once again raised by St. Hawking and L. Mlodinow in their last book "The Grand Design".
In his pre-knowledge God has foreseen all erroneous theories to which we might come. Therefore, the Universe was created in a way which, in a single meaning, speaks of an intelligent planning.
NOTES:
[1] Stochastic – collective term for the probability theory and its applications. Stochastic processes and phenomena are described with the help of the statistic laws. One such system is transmuted in such a way that neither its past nor future states could be defined by a single meaning.
[2] The theory of chaos possesses a mathematic apparatus, operating on the grounds of the behavior of some non-linear dynamic equations, sensitive to the initial conditions. If the initial data change even with insignificantly small quantities, for instance commensurable with the Avogadro number variations (of the order of 10-24), the check of the system state will show absolutely different values in the result.
But the mathematic systems with chaotic behavior appear determined, i.e. they obey some strict law. There exists however, such a field in physics as the quantum chaos theory, which studies the non-determined systems, acting according to the quantum mechanics laws. Heisenberg uncertainty principle has a significant role in this field; according to it the coordinates and the impulse of a particle cannot be measured accurately simultaneously, but they are described with a probability wave. But the quantum theories are also deterministic in the sense that they provide laws for the wave change as time passes. Therefore, let us call to our minds that the electrons, while moving around the nucleus, form the beautiful atomic orbitals, which suggests that here again a wonderful and perfect order reigns.
[3] If we take things at the "string" level, the evolutionary transmutations should lead to a change in the very nature of the matter (energy), of which they are built. Thus, it is not clear whether the strings will preserve their properties, i.e. whether they could continue oscillating at all, so that they would be in a condition to "turn into" elementary particles.
(According to a new theory all the elementary particles are in fact miniature fibers of energy called "strings". It is more correct to say that there is only one type of a string, which can perform an enormous variety of oscillations. The particular way of oscillation generates exactly defined mass, electric charge, spin, etc, properties, which differentiate one type of particles from another. That is to say, if the string oscillates in one way it shows itself as an electron, in another way - as a quark, neutrino, tau-lepton, etc.
Some scientists state that the new string theory offers a powerful conceptual paradigm, which has the potential to respond to the question what is the reason for the elementary particles to possess exactly these properties. Therefore, let us say a few words on this occasion. The strings can perform an infinite number of resonance wave oscillations, which means that they should generate an infinite row of elementary particles with all sorts of properties. In that case why there exist only those particles for which we have noted in chapter ІV that are like the elements of a perfect meccano, enabling the assembling of our world? The answer given by the string theory is that there are six (seven) additional dimensions of space, which at microscopic level are rolled into the so called Calabi-Yau shapes. (They are named after Eugenie Calabi and Shing-Tung Yau, who have discovered them in mathematics even before their meaning for the string theory became known.) The additional dimensions have a great influence on the way the strings oscillate, and therefrom on the particles properties. But the equations show that there are an infinite number of Calabi-Yau shapes, and each of them is as valid as all the rest (fig. 4). That is to say that we come to a dead-end again – how were selected and "fixed" those shapes, which generate exactly the necessary elementary particles? Or the question is only shifted, but not solved.)
a)
b)
Fig. 4 a) One of the possible Calabi-Yau shapes. b) Big enlargement of an area in space with the additional dimensions in the form of miniature Calabi-Yau shapes.
[4] The dynamic laws are manifested differentially in time, i.e. the consequences ensuing from them are realized in every particular moment. Statistic laws act integrally – their consequences are implemented only in a big enough time lapse or at a complete transmutation of the system. An example of the first ones are the gravity law, the momentum conservation law, etc., and for the second ones – the stochastic laws, which determine the state of a system not with a single meaning, but with a certain probability.
[5] During the 70s of the ХХ century the German physicist-theorist Hermann Haken laid the foundations of new interdisciplinary science, called by himself synergetics. The synergetics studies the self-organization phenomena, i.e. the mechanisms leading to the spontaneous generation of spatial and/or time structures in still nature, as well as in living nature. Therefore, some specialists propose the term "synergetics" to be accepted as founding for all processes of self-organization, which are studied by various schools in that direction.
[6] Let us illustrate this situation with the following example: If in the proximity of a bear nucleus, let us say of the chemical element iron, we pass a shaft of electrons, only one part of them will be kept around it and will be allocated to the atomic orbitals as follows – 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s2 3d6 . Thus, they automatically arrange themselves in an exactly defined stable configuration, building the electron shell of the iron atom.
[7] Atoms interact with each other incessantly - they collide, they form common electron pairs, they give and accept electrons, etc., therefore they would be easily destroyed at the lack of stable arrangement. But the collision of two cosmic systems leads to their disintegration (see 88 note chapter ІІІ), which once again shows that there are no arranging relations with them, which would spontaneously structure them.
[8] If we should make a broader summary of the self-organization processes, we have to say that:
а) They are not manifested in all spheres of reality.
б) They always lead to the formation of a certain amount of structures which are characteristic of a given phenomenon.
в) They do not permit a qualitative leap from one level of order to another higher one – for instance a transition from chemical to biological level is not possible.
(We will examine in more detail the questions related to the self-generation of life and its evolution in the second part of the book.)
[9] Thus, the atheists argument that at the presence of multi-Universe the anthropic principle is redundant, is enervated. The momentum conservation law is dynamic (i.e. it is in force in any moment of time) and cannot be breached by fortuitous fluctuations, that are characteristic of the stochastic processes. Hence follows, that even if there exist an infinite number of universes, for the building of our world a super-natural interventions is compulsory.
[10] Space and time are measured with continuous quantities. Any interval of them could be divided into an infinite number of parts. Therefore the possibility to obtain some exactly defined value of these quantities is 1/∞. The same goes also for their derivatives, for example for the speed, which is a function of distance and time.
A number of quantities have discrete values. For instance, the masses of molecules, atoms and elementary particles are always strictly determined. Then a certain quantity of a substance will consist of an exactly determined number of particles, e.g. a gram hydrogen contains 6,024...х1023 atoms. But, the quantity of the substance can increment without limits, consequently, the probability for it to be with a suitable mass is again 1/∞.
(According to some contemporary perceptions, the conventional notion of space and time loses its meaning with the Planck scale of these quantities – 10-33 cm and 10-43 sec. The most developed version of the string approach – the M-theory – however, possesses the so called T-duality. According to it, with the Planck length the space-time continuum becomes truly interrupted, but with smaller and bigger lengths its physics remains smooth. That is to say, that space and time could again be divided into an infinite number of small parts.)
Therefore, the state of each celestial body in the system is determined by four parameters – mass, distance to other bodies, speed and direction of movement. According to the considerations above, each of them can take an infinite number of values, because of which the total probability for them all to be suitable is (1/∞)4. In the text we have simplified things saying that the probability for one object in the system to have the optimal orbital characteristics is generally 1/∞.
[11] A probability 1/∞ is equal to a prohibition law, i.e. as in physics principles I and II of thermodynamics "prohibit" the construction of a "perpetuum mobile", thus the 1/∞ ratio "prohibits" an event with such probability to ever happen.
There arises the question whether it makes sense to raise 1/∞ to some power, since the 1/infinity ratio actually tends to zero and shows a total inability for an event to happen? We should follow, however, the rules in math theory, according to which the total probability for two or more events to happen is equal to the product of the probabilities for each of them to be implemented separately. When a total probability 1/∞ to some power is achieved, this according to us shows more than an absolute impossibility for the realization of something.
(If we mark the number of dots on a certain axe with the sign for infinity (∞), then their quantity in the valley will be equal to ∞2. The reason why it is so is because there is an infinite number of axes within the valley, while in the space exist – ∞3. Thus it contains a countless number of valleys. That is why it is possible for a certain infinity to be bigger than another one and a stage index to be used for comparing of different infinities.)
[12] Gravity is a connecting force, and Newton's law - the relation on whose grounds are "calculated" the correlations between the components of the cosmic systems. By analogue, the other three interactions - electromagnetic, strong and weakly nuclear - and the laws related to them determine the atoms strength.
[13] Here it's not a question of creating an electro-mechanic watch/clock, which combines and electronic scheme with a mechanical part, but only for a simple substitution of the clock parts with computer parts.
[14] Philosophers from the ex-socialist camp tried to present the atoms of the Mendeleev's tabulation elements as a confirmation of the dialectic law, which says that quantitative accumulations lead to qualitative transmutations. That is to say, the quantitative addition of protons in the nuclea leads to the emergence of new types of atoms with different properties in terms of quality. Let us pay attention, however, that atoms are not a mechanical sum of particles, but are extremely complicated discrete structures, whose equilibrium is achieved at a very precise balance of the forces in the nucleus and the electron shell (see chapter V). All this speaks that atoms as self-organizing systems have originated as a result of a very complexly plotted construction, and not of arbitrary processes. This conclusion should chill down the enthusiasm also of those upholders of synergetics, who rely that this science will contribute exclusively to the development of the evolution doctrine.
[15] Theoreticians propose two different explanations for the course of the evolutionary process. The first one is called "phyletic gradualism". According to this point of view, the present living creatures have gradually evolved from earlier and simpler organisms. In that case, however, we should observe constant lines of transitional forms among the species, as well as among higher taxa. It's inexplicable why this line of intermediary groups is missing not only with the contemporary organisms, but also with the fossils. In that direction, N. Heribert-Nielsen, Director of the Botanical Institute with the University of Lund, Sweden, has made a very indicative. After 40 years investigations in the area of paleontology and botany, finally, he was forced to say: "It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that … the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled. (Paul A. Moody, Introduction to Evolution /New York: Harper and Row, 1962/, p. 503. /Synthetische Artbildung, 1953/.)
The second outlook is known as "punctuated (discrete) equilibrium". This term denotes a hypothetical process, with which mutations in the species should be made salutatory and to have a quick evolution in small populations. S. Stanley calls this "quantum" (in this case "sudden") emergence of new type. Such an imaginary process could explain the universal absence of transitional structure, but there are no genetic proofs of it whatsoever.
Here is the evaluation that two famous evolutionists - J. Valentine and D. Erwin give to this concepts: "We conclude that … either of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans". (James W. Valentine and Douglas H. Ervin, “Interpreting Great Development Experiments. The Fossil Record.” an article at symposium published in Development as an Evolutionary Process, Alan R. Lias, Inc., 1987, p. 96.)
А може ли да се намери на БГ?
ОтговорИзтриванеДа, но малко преработих материала:
ОтговорИзтриванеhttp://kosmos-21.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post.html