понеделник, 17 март 2014 г.

Farewell, Darwin!


At the time of Darwin the knowledge on nature was quite limited; 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, which are an antithesis of the evolutionary formulation, become indispensable.[1] Below we will lay down these in a few points, making a short clarification on each of them:
1. A primordial matter in a state of absolute chaos cannot reach by chance the observed contemporary level of arrangement. 
Scientists consider as "chaotic" those systems whose behaviour is subject to radical change caused even by negligibly small events. Thus, long term forecasts become impossible. The discovery of the ability to measure the chaos parameters is often cited as the third biggest achievement of the 20th century, along with the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Examples of such chaotic 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 to be too complicated. Therefore, the purpose of studying chaos is to include the regularity in systems that seem disordered and unpredictable. When we speak about chaos in our world, that should only be in a relative sense.  Generally speaking, we could define this world as a world of harmony and organization.[2]
What will happen, though, if the so called "undetermined mutability" (according to Darwin) acts at the level of fundamental constants, laws and interactions? Let us try to imagine a world in which everything changes in a totally chaotic way. In this world 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 also for the mass, the spin, the magnetic moment, etc., we should assume even a qualitative (evolutionary?) transformation of particles into something different from what they are in reality.[3] The law of gravity now could be written 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 absolutely clear that with 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 primary 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 or organization whatsoever.[4]


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 statistic laws prohibit (do not allow, render absolutely incredible) those processes.[5]
It is accepted that W. Ashby in 1947 in his "General theory of systems" introduced for the first time the term "self-organization". What is understood under self-organization in its most common meaning is 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 base 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;[6]
 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 staged arranging of the matter can 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 an electron beam is passed in a proximity to a bare 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[7]. 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 would be enough to launch the space crafts 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, does not happen. 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 indicates that there are not existing ordering relations, which can spontaneously organize all spheres of our world.[8]

Now, we shall consider namely those areas, where the synergetic processes are not in force, to see whether here the dynamic and the statistical laws allow for any form of Darwin-type of self-organization, at all.  

                                          Fig. 1. The Solar System (artist impression)

Let us remember the paradox that exists in our planetary system (see fig. 1): The mass of all planets is hardly 1/750 of the mass of the Sun, but in the distribution of the general moment of the quantity of movement (the  angular momentum) over 98% of it falls to the planets, and less than 2% - to the Sun. 
Today several hundred hypotheses on the origin of the Solar system are known. We could divide them into three groups - nebular, catastrophic and synthetic. But none of these could cope with the above discrepancy. (The origin of the cosmic structures is related to a far more entangled and insuperable hindrances, but here we shall work only with this problem, since it will allow us to approach the task in general.) 
Philosophers with an atheistic frame of mind often mislead their audience with the assurance that sooner or later a naturalistic response will be found to all perplexities in science. But such a statement is incorrect, since objectively there exist two possibilities: 
1) A lot of the contemporary scientific and technical challenges shall actually obtain their solution in the nearer or more distant future, as the American writer Michio Kaku (Japanese origin) forecasts in his book Physics of the Impossible
2) However, we shall never cope with those things that contradict natural laws. We could point out, as the simplest example, the invention of a perpetuum mobile. 
Therefore, the question is to find a strict solution, with the aid of mathematics and physics, of the Solar system: whether it is possible to obtain in a natural way such a drastic breach of the angular momentum or additional intelligent interference is required? For if it is proven for at least one of the structures of our world that it was not formed as a result of the action of the natural laws, this would necessarily require the existence of an intelligent Creator. And we suspect that the brilliant concept of the atoms, the stellar formations and the living organisms will present plenty of other similar evidence. (In this case atheists cannot refer to their favourite argument for the "multiple universes", because, even if they exist?, they appear as "external", i.e. not having an impact on the systems in our world.)
Where does the balance tip to? 
The great Russian science communicator A. Tomilin somewhere notes that currently the planetary cosmogony "turns out to be in a state of the most profound crisis". (It could be definitely added that the same applies to an equal extent to the stellar and galactic cosmogonies.) Further on he continues: "Besides, the new facts obtained through observations have a decisive role for establishing such a situation. The basis itself, which lies in the foundation of all existing hypotheses, comes into contradiction with the facts. And, in order to take science out of this crisis condition, the scientists have to reconsider the basis, laid at the very treatment of the cosmogonic tasks, to search for new methods for their resolving". But do not these words, pronounced by an atheist, in fact contain the strongest recognition of the general impossibility to interpret things from material point of view?[9] 
Most of the scientists consider the statement that "God has created the universal order" as a rather primitive explanation of the phenomena that surround us. Let us remember, however, that this Divine creative act is with unimaginable power, beauty and perfection. On the contrary, the theories hitherto have an over-simplified approach, because they try to render the arrangement of the universe to elementary processes of matter self-organization. However, it would occur to no one to relate the appearance of a Boeing aircraft with "a typhoon swept over a landfill", and the Universe is far more imposing than the most significant piece of work of the human brain! 
Now, we shall try to formulate the statistical probability for the accidental origination of a stable and well organized universe. The fundamental constants, the characteristics of the elementary particles, etc., are measured with analogue quantities, therefore they allow for an infinite (∞) number of values of their settings. Let us assume that a system of n elements is required for the existence of such a world. Generally, the possibility for each member of the system to have exactly the  appropriate parameters is 1/∞, and for all n elements - 1/∞n. Even if the system has an endless number of stable configurations, the probability to have any one of them formed by chance is:


(where n is a whole positive number bigger than one). Thus, for systems that allow an endless number of values for their parameters, a peculiar paradox occurs. Although they could possess countless working conditions, even then the probability to reach any one of them by chance is smaller than infinitely small or, in practice, it could never be fulfilled (Fig. 2).[10] 

Fig.2 Possible configurations of the parameters' values, which ensure from I to ∞ working (steady and functioning) conditions. Systems I, II, III, etc. could be  other worlds, as well as physical structures that are formed within them.

With living organisms the variations are limited, since their components (DNA, proteins, etc.) are built in strictly determined number of discrete units (nucleotides, amino acids, etc.). But in fact, there appear to be negligibly small, practically unrealisable probabilities for an accidental formation of the protocell, which is able to realize all processes of life. In other words, in the highlighted areas, the existing dynamic and statistical laws forbid the self-arrangement of matter.

 3. The intermediate states are: а) unstable - with the atomic and celestial structures, and b) non-functioning - with live organisms. That points out 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, a wholeness. All elements of the system are interdependent, i.e. each of them affects the rest, and vice versa - they also have an impact on it. The structure of the system determines its internal form of arrangement, i.e. it is an expression of the order existing therein. The full description of the order in the complexly organized systems is studied by a comparatively new science, called taxiology (logic of order), which is being developed  as one of the most fundamental and important logical theories. But its basic principles and categories are studied through too complicated extensional mathematical logic and theoretical computation methods. Therefore, we shall not examine them here, but will apply an extremely simplified approach, which will allow us to make conclusions regarding the possibility for an evolution of the aforementioned systems.
A principle known as "all or nothing" is valid with them, referring to the fact 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 disturbed. 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, a disturbance will occur in the functioning of the system that will destroy it or take it out of use. Therefore, either everything is fine and the system functions in a normal way, or otherwise, it is as if nothing is fine and the system is terminated.
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?[11] For example, a transistor is put in place of a gear. It is absolutely sure that the watch will go out of use now. On the other hand, even the computer will not realize its function even when we have assembled all the computer parts, and only one part is left from the watch.
Based on the aforesaid we could make the following conclusion: when one object is gradually transformed into another object of the same type (but different in some way - by size, by model, etc.) the function is hampered, or even ceased. And when an object of one type is 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". By analysing Fig. 2 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. But, 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 the "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).
At the beginning we already mentioned that every metamorphosis in the parameters of the micro-world (characteristic of the particles, intensity of interactions, etc.) makes atoms unstable and results in their being destroyed. In other words, the atoms and the other chemical elements are discrete structures, which cannot pass one into another through a series of intermediate forms, but they require strictly calculated design.[12] We could think about the celestial formations - planetary, stellar, galactic in a similar way.
As it is well known, proteins have a very important role within living creatures. They build the cell structures, perform catalytic functions, participate in the realization of the genome, etc. But one part of them are  species-dependent. Therefore if a mutation occurs, that 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 the individual 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 for the origin of new physical forms".[13]
From Fig.2 it is understood that God can create an infinite variety of ordered and stable worlds, but each one of them is rather hardly probable (1/∞  to some power), which precludes its origination by chance. (Thus we respond also to the question asked already 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".) Let us add that the "intelligent interference" is actually the best explanation, since it instantly resolves all contradictions about the origin of the Universe, the living creatures and the human being.
In his pre-knowledge God has foreseen all erroneous theories to which we might come to. Therefore, the Universe was created in a way which unambiguously bespeaks of an intelligent planning.


See also the articles: 
A debate with Stephen Hawking in his absence 

God's Fingerprints (Is it possible to empirically test the cosmological model of the Creation, as described in the Bible?)

 

NOTES:

[1] According to C. Darwin the factors of biological evolution are brought down to mutability, heredity and natural selection. However, if we consider things in a strictly naturalistic manner, we could relate his doctrine also to the evolution of the inanimate nature. Russian physicist Andrei Linde (currently working in Stanford University) proposes the idea of the  "chaotic inflation". It states that the quantum fluctuations of vacuum permanently lead to the origination of mini-universes. They evolve in isolation, and initially they are inflated by inflation processes, while later on – they evolve according to the classical hypothesis of the Big Bang. With each appearance of a new world what is observed is mutability in the laws and the constants of the matter. The accidental recurrences of some of them are regarded as a type of heredity. The natural selection is also in force, since it preserves the physical structures - atoms, molecules, celestial systems, that, with the combination of appropriate parameters,  are stable.
But if Darwinism could be applied to animate and inanimate nature, then we have to accept it as a universal dialectic-materialistic concept, which preconditions the self-organization of the universe.


Fig. 3 Linde's model of chaotic inflation is illustrated as a tree-like structure, consisting of an infinite number of multiplying "bubbles" (inflationary universes). Each newly obtained universe could "sprout", thus forming new  mini-universes. (The change in colour presents "mutations" in the physical laws against the parent universes.)
[2] Chaos theory possesses a mathematical apparatus, operating on the grounds of the behaviour of  non-linear dynamic equations, sensitive to the initial conditions. If the initial data changes even with insignificantly small quantities,  comparable for instance with the Avogadro number variations (of the order of 10-24), the check of the final system state will show absolutely different values as a  result.
But the mathematical systems with chaotic behaviour appear determined, i.e. they seem to obey some strict law. There exists, however, such a field in physics as the quantum chaos theory, which studies non-determined systems, acting according to the quantum mechanics laws. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has a significant role in this field. According to it, the coordinates and the impulse of a particle cannot be measured  simultaneously, but  are described with a probability wave.  Nevertheless, the quantum theories are also deterministic in the sense that they provide laws for change of the wave with  time. Therefore, let us recall that the electrons, while moving around the nucleus, form the beautiful atomic orbitals. This 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 fibres of energy called "strings".  It would be 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 strictly defined properties such as mass, electric charge, spin, etc, that allow us to differentiate one type of particles from another. So 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 observed properties". Therefore, let us say a few words on that. 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 we can ask, why there exist only those limited number of observed particles, which, as we have noted in chapter ІV, resemble the elements of a perfect meccano (construction set), allowing the assembling of our world? The response given by the string theory is that there are at least six (or seven) additional dimensions of space, which at microscopic level are rolled into the so called Calabi-Yau shapes.  (Named after Eugenie Calabi and Shing-Tung Yau, who have discovered them in mathematics even before their meaning for the string theory is known.) The additional dimensions have a great influence on the way the strings oscillate, and, as a result,on the properties of the particles. 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 those shapes, which generate exactly the necessary elementary particles, selected? Or the question is only shifted, but not solved.
                                                                        а) 
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] According to some observations, that are still not confirmed, it is possible that in the past the constant fine structure had a bit different value. (More detail on this discovery can be found in John Barrow's book: The Constants of Nature: From Alpha to Omega - the Numbers That Encode the Deepest Secrets of the Universe .)
Even if we assume that this is true, the mutation could vary within very narrow limits - otherwise, the rather fragile balance of the structures in the micro-world would be broken.
[5] 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.
[6] During the 70s of the ХХ century the German physicist-theorist Hermann Haken laid the foundations of new interdisciplinary science, called by himself  synergetics. Synergetics studies the self-organization phenomena, i.e. the mechanisms leading to the spontaneous generation of spatial and/or time structures in inanimate , as well as in animate nature. Therefore, some specialists propose the term "synergetics" to be accepted as founding one for all processes of self-organization, which are studied by various schools in that direction.
Synergetic processes presuppose to a great extent an intelligent Creator, since the ordering relations in these processes are evidence of   planning and purposefulness. Consistently pursued materialism, however, requires Darwin type of evolution, which is based exclusively on the variety of accidental variations and the natural selection. 
[7] Let us illustrate this situation with the following example: If in the proximity of a bare nucleus, let us say of the chemical element iron, we pass an electrons beam, 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.
Atoms interact with each other continuously - 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.
[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.
b) They always lead to the formation of a certain amount of structures which are characteristic of a given phenomenon.
c) They do not allow a qualitative leap from one level of order to another higher one - for instance, a transition from chemical to biological level is not possible.
[9] As we have already noted, out of the great number of models of the formation of the Solar system, none works, which makes us suspect that here an insuperable contradiction with the natural laws is hidden. That is to say, in a sense, they are analogical to the impossibility to build a perpetuum mobile.
[10] In theory, statistical laws allow for the realization of events with insignificantly small probability. However, practical experience shows that such events never happen. Therefore, some scientists assume that for each event there is a certain "probability threshold", under which its realization is unlikely. But, as unconceivably small, as these relations might be, such as for example 1/10537; 1/1065 720 etc., still, there are other people who argue that such probabilities could be materialized. However, when we get a probability 1/∞, it is infinitely smaller than the smallest probability that we could write or even think about. That is why we hope that even to such "optimists" a probability of 1/∞ most surely will show an absolute "prohibition" for a certain event to be realized in practice.
There arises the question whether it makes sense to raise 1/∞ to some power, since the 1/∞ ratio actually tends to zero and shows a total inability for an event to happen? We should follow, however, the rules in mathematical 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 denote with an ∞ the points on a straight line, then their quantity in the plain will be ∞2, because in it there exist an infinite number of straight lines. In space the number will be ∞3, because it contains an infinite number of plains. Therefore, it is possible for one infinity to be greater than another , and also to use an exponent when comparing infinities.)
[11] Here it's not a question of creating an electro-mechanic watch/clock, which combines an electronic scheme with a mechanical part, but only for a simple substitution of the clock parts with computer parts. 
[12] 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. 
It is not by chance that the great German physicist M. Born, once said: "I was seeing in atom the clue to the most cherished secrets of nature, and it revealed to me the grandeur of the whole creation and the Creator". (MAX BORN, “My Life and My Views”, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1968, 88). 
[13] Theoreticians propose two different explanations for the course of the evolutionary process in biology. 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 is inexplicable why this line of intermediary links 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 statement.  After 40 years of 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 paleo-biological 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 view is known as "punctuated (discrete) equilibrium". This term denotes a hypothetical process, with which mutations in the species should be made saltatory 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 … neither 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.)
In his works Darwin acknowledges that his doctrine is not in a position to explain either the absence of transitional forms, no the gradual origination of a complicated organ, such as the human eye, for example. The principles deduced here foresee that this is exactly what has to be observed in nature, but, as we have noted at some other place, an empirical verification is required in order to prove the theories.

Няма коментари:

Публикуване на коментар