science and philosophy

Evolution: Setting the Stage Part 4

kaykiser1 Comment
Charnia Pre-Cambrian fossil
Charnia Pre-Cambrian fossil

Evolution from the Beginning

When Charles Darwin published On the Origen of Species in 1859 evolutionary theories had been around for a long time. The third century BC Greek philosopher Epicurus derived a form of evolutionary theory from Democretus’ atomic theory. Lucretius, first century BC Roman poet, proposed it as a logical necessity of naturalism in order to explain life arising from nature alone without divine intervention. It was resurrected in the Renaissance through the Age of Enlightenment in a number of forms. See the table.

Charles Darwin had been introduced to evolutionary theories through his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, a physician, inventor and poet. See an evolutionary verse in the box below. Erasmus Darwin was a friend of William Wordsworth and Samuel Coleridge and their contemporaries who admired his poetry. Mary Shelly wrote Frankenstein after reading of his galvanic experiments on animals. He was an advocate of evolution by acquired characteristics, a theory later popularized by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and which was still later discredited as having no viable mechanism. Charles’ family was wealthy, being associated with the Wedgwood fortune. Both sides of the family were Unitarian free thinkers, but the Wedgwood side leaned toward Anglican, at least socially. In this environment and later through his brother Erasmus’ circle of friends, Charles was exposed to the intellectual elite of the day.

Organic life beneath the shoreless waves

Was born and nurs’d in ocean’s pearly caves;

First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,

Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;

These, as successive generations bloom,

New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;

Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,

And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.

— Erasmus Darwin, The Temple of Nature, 1803

 

 Evolution theories before Darwin (click to follow link)

Charles’ father Robert was a physician and wished for Charles and his older brother Erasmus Alvey Darwin to follow suite. The brothers attended medical training together at the University of Edinburgh. Erasmus graduated as a physician, but was retired on a pension at age 26 by his father because of his frail health. He spent the rest of his life entertaining the intellectual elite. Charles did badly in medicine, probably because his interests lay elsewhere. While there, he studied with naturalist Robert Edmund Grant who was a proponent of Lamarck’s acquired traits evolutionary theory and homology, a belief that similar form meant common ancestry. He learned stratigraphic geology from Robert Jameson and also studied plant classification and taxidermy.

Later, his father sent him to Christ’s College where he received a BA in theology. His father had procured a position for him as an Anglican pastor, but Charles never was ordained and did not practice. More interested in natural history, he studied botany and geology and aspired to travel for study in the tropics, a popular avocation of young men of independent means. One of his professors, John S. Henslow, got him an unpaid position on the HMS Beagle as gentleman’s companion to Captain Robert FitzRoy on a voyage to map the coastline of South America. Darwin spent his time collecting fossils, plants and animals from South America to the Galapagos Islands to Polynesia. Because Professor Henslow popularized the collections he sent back before his return, Darwin was a celebrity when he arrived home.

When Charles returned from his five year around the world trip in 1836, he published detailed journals of the trip, as well as other scientific books, and delivered papers to the Geological, Geographical and Zoological Societies. He spent another twenty years studying barnacles, pigeon breeding and similar subjects. He never addressed Evolution in any of these publications. He did not publish On The Origin of Species for 23 years! Supposedly he did not publish earlier because he feared reprisals, but being of independent means, being recognized as an authority in his field, and actively dialoging with leaders of the day about other theories of transmutation of species, this seems to be a thin excuse invented by later authors. This excuse was never alluded to in his book. Instead, he described working on it steadily over all those years and that he chose to publish his “abstract” (On the Origin of Species) due to failing health, although he said it would take three or four more years to complete his work.

It wasn’t until Alfred Russell Wallace, a naturalist and admirer, sent Darwin his observations and theory of Evolution while still away on a voyage to the Malay Archipelago and Borneo, that Darwin’s theory was (hurriedly?) presented and published, establishing primacy over Wallace. To his credit, when his friend Charles Lyell presented the joint papers[1] to the Linnaean Society, Darwin acknowledged Wallace as co-founder of the theory. Claiming to have sat on his theory for over twenty years, he rushed to publish On the Origin of Species which he described as an unfinished manuscript without supporting facts, acknowledgements or references[2]. This state was little improved even in the Sixth (and last) Edition, which was only minimally changed from the first edition except for historical recognition of others before him and attempts to address some of the most important scientific criticisms.

I have always wondered whether Wallace was the true originator of a theory that Darwin had overlooked in his own observations, although he had written letters to Joseph Hooker and Asa Gray earlier hinting at an evolutionary theory. Did Wallace provide the link that brought all his speculations together? Because he was backed up by his friends Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell in his claim of primacy, we may never know. It is sure that the scientific reputation of Wallace declined, while Darwin’s grew. It is interesting to note that Wallace later rejected the theory as lacking both mechanism and sufficient evidence. Others have also speculated about Wallace being the true originator of the theory.

[1] Presented as On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and On the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. It was composed of two papers, Wallace’s On the Tendencies of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type and Darwin’s Abstract Extract from an Unpublished Work on Species along with Abstract of a Letter to Asa Gray (to establish primacy).

[2] On the Origin of Species, first edition, Introduction, paragraph 3 & 4.

Evolution, Setting the Stage, Part 3

kaykiser1 Comment
Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin

Darwin’s circle of friends and mentors was largely composed of the intellectual elite of the day, many of whom embraced progressivism, socialism, atheism or agnosticism and various other popular philosophies of the day. Darwin himself stated in some of his correspondence that one of his goals was to do away with religion.

…hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true: for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.

— Darwin, letters

After the initial presentation of a paper to the Royal Society, the philosophy, (theory), of Evolution was published in the popular press, much like other popular philosophies of the day, not in scientific journals. Its arguments were more philosophical than scientific, offering little evidence other than similarity of forms between fossil and living animals, and observations that the existing forms were well suited to their functions, both of which had been widely accepted earlier. Contrary to popular accounts, from the beginning, many people in academia, the sciences, philosophy and the clergy enthusiastically embraced the new philosophy of Evolution. To the clergy, it was the means whereby God had created our world.   To the anti-religion elite, it meant God could be replaced altogether, along with any inconvenient moral limitations.

Championed more like a political campaign than a scientific theory, after some early opposition by other scientists it became accepted by the dominant elite, so that scientists had to either adopt it or become obsolete. Any opposition was branded as ignorance or religious tyranny in heated debates where Evolution proponents used a straw man[1] argument in which they presented Darwinian Evolution versus creation ex nihilo of each species.  Most people of the time recognized that changes had taken place,  so that their logical arguments actually involved a lack of scientific evidence for the theory as presented.

In some respects, that picture has prevailed to this day. It is this political tactic that has been repeated in other areas of science to promote new theories, to squash opposition to them and for junior scientists to unseat senior scientists from positions of authority. That is why progressivism and Darwinism, aka Evolution, is so important to later scientific philosophies and developments.

“I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous — You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction—& started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved.  Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?”

— Adam Sedgewick, noted geologist who had taught Darwin, after reading Origin of Species

The theory of Evolution was based on the economic philosophy of Thomas Malthus whose book, An Essay on the Principles of Population, 1798, predicted that population would outgrow food supplies resulting in starvation. Like Malthusian philosophy, the mechanism of Evolution, survival of the fittest through natural selection, depended on competition for scarce resources as the basis of survival. In the introduction to the first edition of On the Origin of Species[2], Darwin explains Evolution as “this is the doctrine of Malthus applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms[3].”

At the time, there were two opposing theories about the development of the earth. One was catastrophism; the other was uniformitarianism. Catastrophism, supported by Georges Cuvier, the father of paleontology, proposed that the earth had gone through repeated sudden upheavals. Uniformitarianism, promoted by Charles Lyell, geologist and friend of Darwin, proposed an earth where no major changes had taken place except gradual modification over vast periods of time. Darwin had taken the first volume of Lyell’s book, Principles of Geology, on his voyage around the world. Needless to say, Darwin favored Lyell’s position. Later, Darwin accepted Lyell’s theory as supporting his claims of gradual changes over vast periods of time. Cuvier, who had died before Darwin’s time, had opposed uniformitarianism and the earlier evolutionary theories, to be discussed in the next post.   Evolution needed long eons of time for the proposed changes to take place, so uniformitarianism was the chosen philosophy that would facilitate it.

It is interesting to note that until the late twentieth century, uniformitarianism was the accepted dogma[4]. Today, as the best explanations for the fossil record and evolutionary changes, long periods of uniformity interspersed by brief catastrophic events of various sorts are favored. Thus, catastrophism is favored along with elements of uniformitarianism in the form of plate tectonics, formerly known as continental drift[5] which had been rejected earlier. The renewed interest in catastrophism was fostered by the recognition of meteorite strikes and craters as a prehistoric reality that would fit past mass extinctions best.

I have witnessed the acceptance of catastrophism, widespread meteorite craters and plate tectonics, since the 1970s. When I first started my independent studies into science and earth’s mysteries, catastrophism, widespread meteorite craters and continental drift were considered fringe theories. Serpent Mound, an earthwork by the prehistoric Hopewell culture in southern Ohio, is on the edge of an ancient four mile wide weathered meteorite crater. When I first visited Serpent Mound in the early 1980s, the visitor center still had the display claiming it was a crypto-volcanic crater. Although the strata were of dolomite and other sedimentary limestones with no hints of volcanic rock, the prevailing theory proposed an underground gas explosion caused by cryptic or hidden volcanism. Since that time, over 200 meteorite craters have been identified, most of them not readily recognizable due to weathering or other obscuring forces, including the one off the coast of Yucatan that is credited with the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous era.

The re-acceptance of these theories is an example of how science should work. In science, inconsistencies in current theories are met by new data, and questions are answered by formation of new theories or acceptance of once rejected old ones. That is not to say that politics had nothing to do with it. On the contrary, the plate tectonics theory was pushed through in the popular press in the same way that Darwinian Evolution was. Established geologists that did not immediately go along with the theory were publicly ridiculed and defamed in a way that could only be described as scandalous. It was a scientific revolution in geological circles.

 [1] Straw man argument is one where an easily defeated weaker premise is substituted for the real opposition view in order to appear to win the argument, i.e. the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition’s best argument

[2] Complete title and subtitles of the book is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, published by John Murray, London, 1859.

[3] Introduction, paragraph 8, describing Chapter 3, Struggle for Existence.

[4] Dogma – established opinion put forth as authoritative, especially without adequate grounds.

[5] Alfred Wegener, 1912, and earlier proponents.

Evolution: Setting the Stage, Part 2

kaykiser

Marx_and_Engels

Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels    Source:  Wikipedia, Public Domain

Socialism / Communism

Socialist thought began to be accepted in the 17th century (or even earlier) and flourished in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Socialism is actually a kind of social Darwinism or social engineering. It is based on a misunderstanding of human nature and a belief that man’s very nature could be molded and improved. This was based on the belief that the world is naturally progressive and everything, including human nature, is being continually improved throughout time.

The socialist dream sounds wonderful: everyone working for the common good and no one going without. Unfortunately, this belief has proven again and again to be wrong. Human nature is basically Self-centered, and in general man is generous and altruistic only after personal needs and desires are met. Humans are motivated by a focus on Me first, then spouse and children, then extended family, then friends, then local tribe and only then extending to local and state authority, to country and to the greater global society last.

Man naturally is very compassionate and generous toward those in need of charity, but only after his basic needs are met. Socialism requires that man’s focus be on the state (or society as a whole), while putting himself and his own interests last. This is the exact opposite of man’s true, unchanging nature. Habits and attitudes can be taught to a certain degree, but it has been demonstrated many times that man’s basic selfish and imperfect nature cannot be changed.

As the Plymouth colony learned, (see Part 1), without personal rewards for his achievements, a person’s motivation to produce is reduced or eliminated along with most of his creativity and efficiency. At the same time, his selfishness, envy, resentment and deceit grow as a result of perceived inequities. In such a society, the lazy person who hardly contributes at all gets as much as the hard working person who produces most of what is shared.

In labor unions where all members are rewarded equally whether they are cracker-jack contributors or space filling dead wood, resentment is rampant and efficiency and productivity suffer. Such unions discourage excellence and encourage minimal or status quo contributions. In the absence of an overarching internally motivated altruism, socialist societies must be tightly and thoroughly controlled by the state, ultimately resulting in totalitarian dictatorships or at best dictatorial bodies of an elite class in order to force people to behave as is required to maintain the society.

Unfortunately, socialism/communism also leads to moral degradation wherein cheating, lying and other forms of deceit are used to gain perceived or actual basic needs or an advantage over others. A prime example is the old Soviet Union, where morals and ethics have suffered greatly from real or perceived deprivations. As a general rule, needy is greedy. Everyone may be equal, but everyone, except the elite, is poorer for it.

Essentially we are back to monarchies and privileged gentry oppressing serfs or slaves “for their own good.” So much for equality as espoused by socialism, communism and their ilk. It is a very old, very bad idea that results in a return to old oppressions and a loss of basic freedoms and inalienable human rights “endowed by our Creator.”

But wait, what about the utopian dream? Marx presented his philosophy as a series of steps where, through the principles of dialectical materialism[1], society progresses from original oppression by the bourgeois[2] under capitalism[3] through struggle to a “dictatorship of the proletariat[4]” to a utopian state where governments are unnecessary and fade away on their own. Unfortunately, it never goes beyond the dictatorship stage because the utopian dream is totally unrealistic, unworkable and unsustainable in the real world due to the inherent and unchangeable nature of man and to reality in general. Marx never explained how the society would take that final step from dictatorship to utopia. People in power want to stay in power. It is totally unrealistic to expect them to voluntarily give that up.

Even if utopia were attained, how would the utopian society be organized and maintained without essentially robotic altruism to the society[5] by every individual and (again) strict control from the top to keep it all going? Like monarchies and dictatorships it is still all about control by an elite group. In recent fiction, Star Trek is a model of a utopian society. Poverty has been eliminated and altruism is the norm. No one is envious or resentful of others’ successes, and everyone gladly obeys orders from a wise and benign leader toward a common goal. However, the real world is more like Babylon 5 with all of its intrigues, envy, resentment, prejudices, hatreds and inequities. Man’s nature cannot be denied, and control through coercion and rewards is necessary for even a “utopian” society to function. Heaven on earth is impossible as long as imperfect people are involved.

Unfortunately, even today there are those who would throw away their freedom, in the form of excessive regulation and government control, to gain a (false) sense of security under the control of a supposedly wiser elite. It seems there are some who are uncomfortable with freedom, with all its risks and opportunities, and who desire a nice safe cage. (Some intellectuals and elitists who espouse the socialist philosophy assume that they will be among the elite and are only uncomfortable that others are not controlled. However, most of these people will end up being the controlled, not the controllers.)

They, who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,  deserve neither liberty nor safety.                    —Benjamin Franklin

Christianity is built on the value and importance of the individual whereby everyone benefits freely as a result of freely practiced moral values such as duty, honor, charity, respect and equality of opportunity (not outcome, which is unrealistic)[6]. Socialism in its many forms, does not value the individual but rather sees people as groups that should (be compelled to) work for the greater good of the whole, regardless of whether it is good for any one individual. These two philosophies are diametrically opposed. Socialism can only succeed if Christianity is either eliminated or tightly controlled as a purely social ritual. That is why socialism and atheism are such good partners, and behind socialism is the ever-present progressivism.

The belief in a naturally progressive universe says that everything from the universe to molecules is evolving toward perfection, with no room for absolutes, not even moral ones.   If the entire universe is believed to be naturally progressive, then there is no need for a God to have caused or influenced it. It is its own reason for being. To those who espouse atheism or socialism in its various forms, progressivism is what gives meaning to life and their cause, essentially replacing God. It gives them a purpose and a satisfaction in furthering that assumed natural progress. That is why it has such a strong hold on its believers, especially those who wish to engineer a socialist utopia or stop evolution in its tracks to “save the planet.”

The progressive universe itself becomes their de facto god, and social change toward a dreamed-of perfect utopian paradise becomes the goal and their purpose in life. Since no cultural or social system has ever achieved the perfection envisioned, to the progressive the present system, whatever it may be, must be changed to further that perceived progress. This makes it a perfect philosophy for young radicals who wish things were better but lack the life experiences to see the broader picture or the unintended consequences of rampant social change.

However, remember the maxim: all progress is change, but all change is not progress. That is, unless you believe that progress is inevitable as do the progressives. But progress requires work while regress is the natural state of things. A boulder perched on the edge of a cliff, given enough time and erosion, will naturally roll down (regress) by necessity, but pushing it back up to the top (progress) requires work. Progress is not a natural thing; it must force its way against the regressive nature of the universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy always increases – that chaos or disorder always increases and usable energy always decreases. This is the opposite of the progressive philosophy. Dust, death and decay are natural results of the real world.

If the universe is naturally progressive, then everything must be interpreted as progressing or “evolving” toward perfection, whether it is molecules, life, earth, stars, galaxies or the universe.   The fixed laws and values of basic physics, such as the force of gravity or the mass of the proton, are a great mystery to those who reject all absolutes in favor of universal progress. These values are under constant attack by theorists using deductive reasoning, i.e. “pure” reason, rather than inductive reasoning based on reality, experiments and observation.

This is the case of cosmology and particle physics today. They start with an a priori[7] hypothesis, based on assumptions about how the universe must behave, and produce complex mathematical equations to model an imagined perfectly symmetrical, homogeneous and beautifully progressive universe. In areas where reality conflicts with the theory that is based on pure mathematics, the facts are either ignored as anomalies, reinterpreted to make them fit or new layers of complexity are added to their calculations. Never is the theory questioned.

Why all the expounding on progressivism and its partner socialism with its unrealistic view of human nature, and ultimately its tragic results? First of all, it is a perspective on the pseudoscientific theories discussed in this blog that are all about control of thought by an elite class of “experts” who are not to be questioned. Progressivism and Socialism have influenced or control the foundations of most of modern science and academia today.

That does not mean that real scientific achievement is not valid or does not advance our knowledge of our world; it means that real results are often interpreted to fit the prevailing progressive paradigm. For instance, if DNA of similar organisms is less different than dissimilar ones, which is expected if DNA determines form and function, it is not acceptable to just state the known facts and note the similarities and differences. The very real data must be fitted into the evolution paradigm by concluding that similar DNA means that they must have evolved from a common ancestor. While this may or may not be true, it is far from proven. It is a leap of faith and a philosophy based on existing paradigms.

Secondly, Darwinism and Eugenics[8]specifically have been used as tools and extensions of socialist philosophy throughout its history. Pre-Marx progressive socialist thought itself nurtured Darwinism. Darwin’s theory of Evolution by survival of the fittest (class struggle in socialist parlance) through natural selection arose amidst this nineteenth century pre-Marxist socialist-progressive era. In the context of the prevailing philosophies, this meant to the materialists and humanists that once and for all religion could be eliminated. It seemed to confirm their social ideas that the world was naturally progressive and did not need any outside forces to bring it about. Using the theory of Evolution, religion could be replaced by materialism, humanism and socialism as the new “religion” of the people.

[1] Dialectical materialism supposedly progresses from thesis (original idea) through antithesis (opposition) to synthesis (final form).

[2] Bourgeois (originally a resident of a town or burgh) is defined in Marxism as the (supposed oppressor) upper and middle classes as opposed to the Proletariat defined as the (supposedly oppressed) lower classes. (Proletariat is originally from the Latin proletarius, for citizens lacking property that were exempted from taxes and military service and could only contribute to the state by having children.) This assumes that there is a strict class order rather than a fluid classless society whereby individuals assume ever changing positions based on effort and ability.

[3] Capitalism was coined by early socialists from capital, which originally meant head and later meant property or money.

[4] Dictatorship of the proletariat is really a dictatorship by elites with special privileges over the masses which are tightly controlled.

[5] Only colony animals such as ants, bees and a few rare vertebrates behave like that without coercion.

[6] To be a Christian is to believe in Jesus Christ, repent of sins and rely on Him. Unlike all other religions, it is a religion of Faith, not works. The Christian does good works not to ensure his salvation, but to emulate Jesus, follow His teachings and please God, all done out of gratitude for salvation already gained through simple Faith.

[7] A priori means presumed from the beginning; self-evident; intuitively obvious.

[8] Eugenics is a “science” that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed. Systematized by Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s half-cousin in the late 19th century in which he advocated controlled breeding to prevent mankind from falling into mediocrity by regression towards the mean. This system was later used by the Nazis (National Socialist Party) in their pursuit of the master race, and was used to justify the elimination of Jews and other “undesirables”.

Evolution: Setting the Stage, Part 1

kaykiser

gutenberg-and-fust-with-the-first-printing-press-germany-1450s

The decline of the Holy Roman Empire in the 5th century was followed by a period of absolute power and control by monarchs and the Catholic Church known later as the Middle Ages or Dark Ages, so called by those in succeeding generations who wanted to believe theirs was a more “enlightened” age. Starting with the Italian Renaissance, in the 14th century and continuing through the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment of the 16th through the 19th centuries, the Western world was in a state of constant turmoil and social change.

The invention of the printing press by Johann Gutenberg in 1450 made mass printings and translations of the Bible and other books possible so that they became accessible outside of elite circles. This furthered the Protestant Reformation which had begun in the 14th century with John Wycliff in England and Czech priest Jan Hus who was burned at the stake in 1415. These departures from Catholic tradition were followed by other reformers including Martin Luther, a Catholic priest, who posted his Ninety-five Theses in Wittenberg in 1517 condemning church abuses.

The Medieval Catholic Church, with its domination by rich and powerful men, had become more of a political and military force than a representation of Christ’s love and compassion as reflected by the apostles and the early church. This is not to say that the Church did not do many good things as exemplified by church run universities, hospitals, orphanages, observatories, libraries and other repositories of ancient and new knowledge.

Forced conversions, persecution of “heretics,” i.e. any form of Christianity[1], science or philosophy not sanctioned by the Church, excommunications, torture and death by burning and other means were all practiced at times by the Church. The reader should note that excommunication to the devoted Catholic of the time meant he had no chance of salvation and was doomed to hellfire forever – as opposed to Protestant belief that only God could ever decide that. (What a freeing concept!) Imprisonment, torture and even death were preferable to excommunication. Similarly, monarchies had absolute power over the people and could, almost at will, have anyone stripped of his position, his property, his freedom or his life. Only the Church had any power over monarchies.

Assisted by the rise of Protestantism, the alienation of the people by abuses and domination of the Catholic Church and the Monarchy eventually led to limitations or overthrow of monarchies and the rise of various types of social philosophies and experimentation within and outside the various churches. In this vacuum, many experimental philosophies were espoused, some of which were irreligious or openly hostile to religion. Some went so far as to throw out Christianity altogether. The Directory, set up in France after the French Revolution, is probably the best, though later, example of such an extreme view. For a period of time under this regime in the 18th century, religion, particularly Christianity, was actually outlawed in France, which led to persecution of Christians and Jews.

The Italian Renaissance, beginning in the 14th century, marked a return to classical thinking of the Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. This influenced the formation of humanist and materialist philosophies, which became popular among intellectuals. Materialist philosophy states that there is nothing beyond the material world that we can see and touch. Humanists[2] believed that man was basically good and was only corrupted by society. Materialism[3] said “down with god,” and Humanism said “up with man.”

The goodness and eventual perfection of man and society was/is an important part of the basic philosophy of Progressivism and was/is practiced by communists, socialists and their ilk. It is, in my view, a misinterpretation of human nature and a false belief in our ability to change it. This is Magical Thinking because it is contrary to experience. The unchanging nature of man is the reason that both Shakespearian and Greek plays still have relevance today. The circumstances and society are different, but the human reactions are the same. The Christian viewpoint was/is that man himself is imperfect and cannot be perfected by human endeavor, no matter how noble. If society is faulty, it is because imperfect man is its author.

Note that the word “progressive” has been corrupted from its original meaning. The progressive philosophy originally meant that progress was possible through work, learning and inspiration, built on the works of others progressively. This is contrary to today’s interpretation of progressivism as an inevitable quality of the universe, moving naturally from simpler to more complex and from imperfection to perfection and utopia, which is again Magical Thinking.

In the 19th century, socialist thought was dominated by the “man good, society bad” humanist philosophy of Rousseau, and was guided by the “scarcity and struggle” philosophy of economist Thomas Malthus[4]. The dominant theme of the day was social progress of the “noble savage” toward ultimate social perfection, once he was freed from the tyranny of governments and religion. This utopian dream was a perfect philosophy for radicals who wanted to overthrow, rather than reform, what they perceived to be the corrupt and corrupting society of the time. Many social experiments were carried out in which utopian socialist communities were formed, lived and ultimately failed.

A very early forerunner of this was the Plymouth colony in the 17th century, led by William Bradford. From the beginning they tried a form of communal living wherein all production was shared equally by everyone. When it became obvious that people would not produce well unless they were rewarded in proportion to their labors, this philosophy was quickly rejected, and was replaced by private ownership and free enterprise that quickly produced more prosperity and created wealth. Nineteenth century examples of these utopian socialist experiments include New Harmony, Indiana, Brook Farm, Massachusetts and North American Phalanx, New Jersey.

[1] Example: Waldensians were a group professing poverty, preaching, and opposed to image worship, relics, pilgrimages, intercession of the saints, etc. that were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church beginning in the 12th century.

[2] Originally from the Italian word umanista for a teacher of classical Greek and Latin beginning in the 14th century and promoted by Petrarch.

[3] Note that the word Materialism has been corrupted by the left to mean living for gain of material things, not a philosophy that denies any spiritual aspects. Reinterpretation of words is a common practice of the left that blurs real meanings.

[4] An Essay on the Principles of Population, 1798, predicted starvation because populations were increasing exponentially while food supplies were increasing arithmetically. This philosophy assumed no improvements above subsistence level farming, no development of more prolific and disease resistant crops or mechanical means to increase production, and no other factors that would limit population such as disease and war.

 

Origin of Life Scenarios

kaykiser

500px-Cyanobacterium-inline_svg

Complex structures of cyanobacteria[1]

 The earliest known Life fossils are 3.8 billion year old stromatolites, rocky structures composed of cyanobacteria and sand. 

 From the previous post, “What is Life?” it is readily apparent that living things possess multiple levels of complexity. For even the simplest organism to survive, all of the components, whether they be physical structures or biochemicals, must perform their functions well and in concert. Living things must balance on a thin edge of interconnected complexity to survive.

How is it possible to believe that all of this was built up piece-meal over millions of years, during which many of the components and functions were not fully in place, or to believe that small, stepwise changes in DNA over time result in new structures, when the incomplete sections of DNA must have existed long before there was a workable function? To believe that is not only improbable but insane! And it is not science. It is based on the progressive philosophy that the universe is naturally progressive and will naturally, without any directions, progress from simpler to more complex and from nonliving to living. When applied to the origin of life a new principle is proposed called the Life Principle[2]. This theory assumes that the universe will naturally self-organize to produce life in any “suitable” environment over time.

The scenarios for the first life are equally unbelievable except to the true philosophical believer. These scenarios cannot be called theories, but at best hypotheses and at worst wild speculations.  Among the speculations about where and how life emerged from nonliving matter, the most popular are as follows.

  1. Interstellar Pre-assembly: Life self-assembled from amino acids, peptides (short sections of protein), and proteins that came to earth from space where they were assembled from stardust.
  2. Warm Soup: In the absence of life to consume them, biochemicals that spontaneously formed accumulated in shallow seas until there were enough to form the first primitive life. This is the warm soup Darwin spoke of.
  3. Panspermia: Life forms came to earth from space where they had existed for eons, thus extending the time period for their formation beyond the 4.5 billion years of earth’s existence.
  4. Geothermal Energy: Life formed at geothermal vents that provided the energy needed to build complex biochemicals and structures that then came to life.
  5. Deep Hot Biosphere: Life formed deep underground from hydrocarbons cooked by mantle heating to form more and more complex molecules that then came to life.
  6. Clay Template: Life formed from biochemicals on the surface of clay, which acted as a template for assembling biochemicals and structures that eventually came to life.
  7. Inorganic Life: Life first formed from inorganic particles such as clay, later adding organic chemicals for more efficient functions and finally rejecting or eliminating the original inorganic chemicals.
  8. RNA World: RNA formed first and “learned” to make proteins and other structures through self-catalysis, later replaced by catalysis by protein enzymes.
  9. Protein First: Proteins formed first that then assembled RNA and/or DNA and membranes.
  10. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, (PAH), assumed to be abundant in space and early earth, through reactions such as hydroxylation, oxygenation and hydroxylation, led to formation of more complex molecules such as amino acids, proteins and RNA.

Whatever the means, it is hard to believe that all of the interlocking biochemical systems and cellular structures could have self-assembled over eons of time. The famous experiment that true believers point to as evidence of spontaneous creation of life is the Urey-Miller experiment[3]. In it, a mixture of methane, ammonia and hydrogen, which were thought to compose the earth’s early atmosphere, were subjected to an electrical spark, simulating lightening. Over time, a few of the smallest amino acids, the basic building blocks of proteins, were formed in very low concentrations within a mixture. The truth about the experiment is that it formed a tar of numerous organic chemicals often referred to a “beilstein,” meaning a gross mixture. Beilstein is short for the largest and oldest database of organic chemicals that was first published in 1881 as Beilstein’s Handbook of Organic Chemistry. Its current electronic database can be found on line at Reaxys and contains many thousands of chemicals, thus the definition.

The conditions of the experiment are now not thought to have existed on the early earth. HDTKT? They took an “educated” guess from proxy evidence. Additionally, oxygen would have prevented many of the reactions leading to amino acids and would have destroyed many other products. However, without oxygen in the atmosphere, there would have been no ozone layer to protect the products from the destructive effects of ultraviolet rays streaming from the sun. Reaction products that were formed by lightning in the atmosphere would not be favored or exist for long enough to accumulate under such conditions. Water will also prevent or retard these reactions, and it is destructive to many products. Interfering molecules and water would have to be eliminated to create even the simplest peptide, (a short section of a protein consisting of a few amino acids linked together by eliminating one molecule of water for each link).  Excess water would result in peptide links falling apart to leave amino acids.

The few amino acids in the experiment were formed as mixtures of right and left handed molecules, but only left handed amino acids are used by living things. Going from a mixture of amino acids in low concentrations in a tar containing many compounds to proteins or larger amino acids is not so evident, nor is it evident that it led to the creation of life. Forming a few amino acids in a tar in a highly controlled experiment does not point to an accidental, spontaneous creation of life or molecular evolution. If anything, it points to a designer, not the opposite. It is a leap of faith and thus not science. It is philosophy, opinion or religion, not science based on facts.

The encouraging thing about origin of life studies is that there are still multiple schools of thought, which is a healthy situation in theoretical science. A lot of work is being done to try to determine the best solution to the problem, but the search is far from over. Even if we can discover A route from dead chemicals to living systems, we will never know if it is THE way it occurred. It is a one-time event that cannot be fully understood by science because Science is only concerned with predictable, repeatable and measurable aspects of the universe with which we can or could conceivably interact.

[1] Image from Wikipedia “Cyanobacteria” used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, User:Kelvinsong/Great board of biology

[2] Robert Shapiro, Planetary Dreams, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1999

[3] Urey-Miller experiment or simply Miller experiment by Stanley L. Miller directed by Harold C. Urey in 1953.

What is Life?

kaykiser1 Comment

Animal_diversity

Composite Photo source:  Wikipedia “Animal_Diversity” in article “Animal” by permission through Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

What is life?

 We can describe the characteristics and infinitely varied forms of living things, but what exactly is life itself? In the past, it was assumed that there was a vital force present in all living things that passed down from life to life. This philosophy was called vitalism. Because it borders on the Devine, today vitalism has been replaced by the philosophy of mechanism, which states that all natural phenomena, particularly life, can ultimately be explained through physics and chemistry. The universe is thought to be merely mechanical in nature. Under this philosophy, life is just a process produced by physical laws acting on matter.

Life is assumed to be a given, like gravity, which incidentally has not been explained or understood well either. We know gravity exists and how it behaves, but really don’t understand why. There is not a single location in any creature or cell that we can point to and say, this is its life. Definitions of Life usually describe what living things consist of and what they do. They do not actually tell us what Life itself is. We can’t collect, isolate or test it, so it appears to be a transcendent quality. What exactly distinguishes a living cell from a dead one or a mixture of cellular components? Depending on the source, explanations vary from biochemical to functional.

Life only comes from life. Spontaneous generation of living things has been shown over and over to be false. Spoiled food does not beget flies or mold. Each only comes from other flies or mold spores. Life as a process requires just the right kind and amount of regulated energy and a fine balance of the right molecules and structures. Science has not been able to create life or even most biological molecules without the help of molecules first derived from living systems or those systems themselves, e.g. bacteria engineered to produce insulin. Even if all of the components of a living organism are blended in the lab in the correct proportions no life results.

What is it that assembles and winds up the machine or provides the vital spark? Science does not know.   Proponents of molecular Evolution believe that non-living molecules at least once in earth’s history spontaneously became a living system from which all subsequent life descended. They argue (and with some merit) that spontaneous generation cannot occur today because living organisms would consume any components before they would have time to accumulate and self-organize into a living system. They assume that only in the absence of life could components accumulate sufficiently to form life spontaneously from non-living components.

Never mind that the key molecules, e.g. proteins and nucleic acids, are unstable in water for the length of time that would be necessary to accumulate and assemble the correct mixture into a living system. These molecules are assembled by linking smaller molecules together with the loss of a water molecule for each link. When excess water is introduced, e.g. ocean or pond, the reactions tend to be reversed and the links fall apart. That is why proteins inside cells are constantly being assembled to replace those that have been degraded. Molecular Evolution proponents believe that production of life in the laboratory can be accomplished at some future time, although they have no evidence to support that belief. We will look at some of the more popular origin of life theories and the validity of the arguments later.

Life is a continuous process that is constantly working against forces that would end it. It has been said that Life (1) is improbable, (2) defies entropy (the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), (3) is unstable (4) needs a constant supply of raw materials and energy to survive. Let’s look at each of these claims.

 

  1. Life is Improbable

Life really is improbable, partly because of the extremely low probabilities of such complex systems forming by random chance even once. It is the ultimate “Infinite Improbability Drive”[1].   Even the simplest known bacterium contains thousands of types of proteins and other unique biological molecules and structures. Metabolic processes necessary for life depend on thousands of different, specific enzymes for facilitation and regulation through feedback, etc. Enzymes are proteins made of chains of amino acids that are folded into useful shapes. If we suppose that an average enzyme is 200 amino acids long[2], using the 20 left-handed amino acids living beings use, the probability of only one specific enzyme sequence forming at random is 1 in 20200 or 1 in 10260. That’s a 1 with 260 zeros after it.

If the universe is 13.7 billion years old, there have been 4.32 x 1017 seconds since it began. We would need to make 231.4 x 10180 attempts each second since the beginning of the universe to make the random assembly of even this one specific protein plausible – that is, to make the number of attempts that are in the same ball park as the odds against it. This all pre-supposes that all of the amino acids have been pre-assembled and are readily available. Amino acids occur in left and right-handed forms, and only left-handed forms are used by living things. If we take this into account, the odds would be much higher. But remember, to form even one cell all this must happen in a very confined space so that all of the proteins and other molecules can be collected in one place, not just anywhere in the universe or even anywhere on the earth.

If we assume that life molecules were assembled on earth, which is thought to be only 4.5 billion years old, and evidence of life was present 3.8 billion years ago, then the number of attempts per second rises to even more impossible levels by a factor of about 3.4 (13.7/4 billion). And that is just for one protein enzyme assembled from readily available units, excluding interfering molecules, and under the ideal conditions for assembly and preservation. Already we are seeing the extreme odds against a specific enzyme being produced. If we look at what it would take to produce by chance the thousands of different specific enzymes necessary for metabolism, the probability of random assembly of the correct mix would be (20200)3000 for a simple bacterium with 3000 enzymes, or 1 in 10780,000; that’s a 1 with 780,000 zeros after it. The terms “impossible” and “miracle” come to mind.

Now let us look at DNA. There are four different molecules that form base pairs like the rungs on a ladder along the coiled “double helix” of DNA that encodes for proteins, etc. Bacterial DNA, whose chain forms a circle and is tightly wound around proteins, is 300,000 to 4 million base pairs in length. If we assume that a simple bacterium has DNA that is 500,000 nucleotides long, using 4 types of “bases” (two purines and two pyrimidines), the probability of forming the correct sequence is 1 in 4500,000 or 1 in 10301,030 – that’s a 1 with 301,030 zeros after it. Even this presumes that each nucleotide has already been pre-formed from one of the four readily available bases, its partner and a pair of specific phosphorylated sugar (deoxyribose) molecules that form the sides of the “ladder.”

It’s even worse than that, however, since each purine must pair with its specific pyrimidine to form each base pair[3] so double the number is needed. Now add the probabilities of assembling, in one place, the DNA and its associated proteins (histones), the thousands of enzymes and other structures like cell membranes, and it is obvious that the probability of forming even the simplest bacterium is so infinitesimally small that it can only be called either impossible or a miracle. Even if we assume that an earlier form contained a tenth or a hundredth of this number of components, it would still be called impossible or a miracle. For 1% of the components, it would be 1 in (10260)30 or 1 in 107800 (1 with 7800 zeros) for enzymes and 1 in 103010 (1 with 3010 zeros) for DNA (or RNA), plus assembly of all the other components as noted above. Over a ten thousand-fold reduction (0.001%), would be required to make it meaningful, which would leave precious few components to “live.”

One of the origin of life theories proposes that RNA, not DNA was the original control and inheritance molecule. The difference in the structures of DNA and RNA is that DNA uses the deoxy- form of ribose sugar and RNA uses ribose itself. Since DNA now transcribes instructions for protein assembly to RNA first, this theory skips this extra complexity as a more believable scenario. Presently, some viruses use RNA instead of DNA, but viruses are incapable of most life processes on their own and must take over the DNA of host cells to reproduce, etc.   They can be thought of as parasitic “seeds”, not complete organisms.

Fred Hoyle, a famous astronomer and atheist, stated that the odds of forming a living being at random from lifeless molecules would be like the chance that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” Note that Fred Hoyle and N. C. Wickramasinghe estimated the odds at 1 in 1040,000 by assuming that numerous structures of enzymes could perform the same functions. That’s still pretty steep odds. Others have calculated the odds with various assumptions and outcomes, but all result in extremely small odds. Many are enthusiastic about the possibility of life or life’s building blocks arriving from outer space after being assembled by high energy processes in space. Looking at the extreme odds, pre-assembly elsewhere is like weighing a flea on the back of an elephant. It is not a real answer. Some even have speculated that a more advanced, intelligent life form seeded earth with life, but that only pushes the causes further back in time. How did life come to these advanced civilizations?

All of the extreme improbabilities above don’t even address whether life would spontaneously arise under the right conditions, if all components are available, or whether we would just have the same non-living jumble of molecules we could assemble in a laboratory. In other words, we still haven’t addressed what assembles and winds up the mechanism to start life processes. Clearly, some other unknown process or overarching principle besides random chance has been at work in both assembling the components and in turning them into something alive.

 

  1. Life Defies Entropy (the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics)

Entropy is a measure of the disorder of a closed system and the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy always increases – that chaos always increases and usable energy always decreases. Life seems to defy entropy because life is very, very organized and uses matter to generate energy and build more and more complex structures. However, living things are never closed systems; they need material and/or energy from outside to survive, so an organism that seems to decrease entropy within itself may increase entropy of its surroundings continually. Is it enough to result in a net increase in entropy of the earth or the universe? The answer is unknown but possible. Note that this assumes that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is absolutely true in all cases, but this has not been proven either. It is a well-accepted and thoroughly tested theory and thus is a scientific law by that definition.

A planet with abundant life is far more complex and organized than a dead planet simply because the chemistry of life is far more complex and dynamic than inorganic crystalline structures. It is difficult to see how the net decrease in entropy caused by life on an isolated planet can affect any other planet, much less the universe as a whole. If the planet is considered the “closed system” then there is indeed a net decrease in entropy and a net increase in complexity, order and usable energy, e.g. fossil fuels. Of course, that also depends on your definition of order and disorder. If we define disorder as an increase in the number of states, and order as uniformity of form and function, than the dead planet is not as disordered as a planet with abundant life in all its forms and complexity of functions. However, if disorder is the rule, then the ultimate outcome of continued disordering and loss of energy is a uniform, cold, dead universe in the lowest energy and organizational state possible.

 

  1. Life is Unstable

Life is indeed unstable because it exists on the edge of destruction, far from equilibrium. Ordinarily, chemical reactions reach a state of lowest energy called equilibrium where they are stable. At that point the reaction stops or is stabilized dynamically where the net amount of products no longer increases and the net amount of starting materials no longer decreases. Life is never at or near equilibrium and requires input of material and energy to maintain itself in this unstable state. It can only exist under very specific physical circumstances including temperature, pH, pressure and presence or absence of oxygen. An aerobic organism requires oxygen, whereas oxygen is deadly to an anaerobic organism. The only time an organism is stable or at equilibrium is when it is dead. This brings us to (4.).

 

  1. Life needs a constant supply of raw materials and energy to survive

Life requires a constant or nearly constant supply of materials and energy from outside itself to survive. Ultimately, most of life on earth depends on the products of photosynthesis as a source of energy that is initially derived from the sun. The only exceptions are those living systems present in deep seas and deep interiors that derive energy from bacterial processing of inorganic chemicals such as hydrogen sulfide. In both cases, energy and material from outside the organism are necessary to maintain life.

Since no one knows what life actually is, the best we can do is define what living things must have and must do to live. All living things are more alike than different. An advertising flyer I received a few years ago from a supplier of products for biochemistry stated “Did you know that humans share about 50% of their DNA with bananas?[4]” All living things use essentially the same basic biochemical processes such as metabolism in the everyday business of living, so the DNA that encodes for the chemicals used for life processes are necessarily very similar. The differences are relatively minor compared to the similarities. The processes used to accomplish all of life’s functions at the molecular or cellular level have to be very similar for all living beings. Because the processes are so complex and similar, the surprising thing is not that the workhorse protein molecules (and thus the DNA that encodes for them) of different living things are so similar, but that they are as different as they are and still function in essentially the same way.

Living things at the minimum consume and process food, excrete waste, grow and reproduce. Some evolutionists would add “and, through natural selection, adapt in succeeding generations”[5]. Some living things also move, sense and communicate. Some can even go dormant for long periods and only “come to life” when conditions are right. This is true of many bacteria. Bacteria that had lain dormant for 120,000 years have been found under Greenland’s glaciers[6]. Once, I left a closed jar of saturated salt solution, which I had used to treat a sore throat, sitting for a month or so. When I started to throw it out, there was a fuzzy white ball of bacteria floating in the middle of it. This extremophile[7] bacteria that could grow in this high salinity environment was probably from the salt and may have been dormant for thousands of years before awakening[8]. Re-vitalization of dormant organisms is a great mystery. How can life itself be suspended and then be restarted spontaneously?   Is it really suspended or is it just slowed to an imperceptible level? But how could it survive for thousands of years?

So, we are only left with questions about what life is and how it came to be. Obviously the odds against life forming spontaneously put it into the realm of miracles, unless there is some as yet undefined and undiscovered process or principle. In a later post, we will examine some of the theories put forth to try to explain life’s origin.

[1] Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglass Adams, 1979. A satire in which instantaneous intergalactic travel is possible due to an infinite improbability drive.

[2] Note that the hypothetical numbers given here of amino acids, proteins and DNA nucleosides in a simple bacterium are simplified to make calculations easier.

[3] Purines Adenine (A) and Guanine (G) must pair with Pyrimidines Cytosine (C) and Thymine (T), only as A-T and G-C to form each nucleotide pair that forms each “rung” of DNA. RNA substitutes Uricil for Thymine.

[4] Sigma Life Science, part of Sigma Aldrich Company, St. Louis, MO, USA. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com

[5] Life, from Wikipedia

[6] Tiny Frozen Microbe May Hold Clues To Extraterrestrial Life, Science Daily (June 15, 2009) — “A novel bacterium — trapped more than three kilometres under glacial ice in Greenland for over 120,000 years… Dr Jennifer Loveland-Curtze and a team of scientists from Pennsylvania State University report finding the novel microbe, which they have called Herminiimonas glaciei, in the current issue of the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. The team showed great patience in coaxing the dormant microbe back to life; first incubating their samples at 2˚C for seven months and then at 5˚C for a further four and a half months, after which colonies of very small purple-brown bacteria were seen. … and it has been shown that ultramicrobacteria are dominant in many soil and marine environments.”

[7] Extremophile – bacteria that thrive in extreme conditions that would kill other organisms. They have been found in boiling hot water, under extreme pressure, at high altitudes, in sulfuric acid rich waters, in oil wells, etc. Almost no place on earth is devoid of life. It is ubiquitous.

[8] Table salt is produced in two ways, mines or evaporation of salt water, so it is uncertain if this was an ancient organism. Ponds used to evaporate sea water are often tinged purple or red by halobacteria and must be purified before sale for food products, so salt with dormant microbes was probably mined from deep underground.

Does the observer determine outcomes in quantum physics ?

kaykiser
Solvay Conference on Quantum Mechanics 1927
Solvay Conference on Quantum Mechanics 1927

Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Theory, which is based on complex mathematics, tries to describe and explain the odd behavior of particles and forces in the atomic and subatomic realm. In this theory, things don’t happen in a smooth (analog) manner but in a punctuated (digital) manner Electrons move around the nucleus at high speeds so that their exact location at any one moment is not known precisely without measurement. The likelihood of finding a given electron at a particular place in its orbital is described by a probability, thus defining the electron “cloud” or “shell.” An electron jumps from one allowed orbital to another by absorbing energy (a photon) at a specific energy (wavelength).

The absorbed photon at a specific energy level is called a quantum, thus quantum theory. The electron will also fall from this “excited” state back to its more stable “ground” state orbital by emitting a quantum of energy. Electrons exist or move between one allowed energy state (orbital) and another based on discrete quanta of energy that they absorb, emit or carry. Each element has unique orbital energies so that light interacting with an atom shows absorption and emission lines at specific wavelengths that can be used to identify the element.

Wave-Particle Duality:

In Quantum Theory, subatomic particles are described as both particles and waves simultaneously. This is referred to as wave-particle duality. All types of energy, including subatomic binding forces, are also defined as both particles and waves, so that matter and energy are treated as if they are the same thing. Both subatomic particles and photons sometimes act like waves and sometimes like particles, depending on how they are tested or detected. Two experiments are noted as evidence: the double slit interference patterns and the photoelectric effect in which electrons are emitted when light is shined on a metal surface. Einstein assumed this proved that energy waves were really made of particles that he called photons.

The double slit experiment is said to demonstrate the wave nature of particles and photons. The photoelectric effect is said to demonstrate the particle nature of particles and photons. Wave-particle duality rests on the assumption that single photons or particles are being measured. Since all detectors have threshold sensitivities below which nothing is detected, it could mean that multiple, not single, photons or particles are really being tested[1]. This would explain the interference patterns seen when either photons or electrons are tested in the double slit experiment. Photoelectric experiments may also be misinterpreted. It is possible that absorbed energy, not photon particles, causes emission of loosely held electrons on the metal surface. Granted, this is speculation at this time, but calls for more study.

Copenhagen Interpretation:

In the widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, a particle is said to not have a fixed state but exist in a smeared out multiplicity of states at once until a measurement is taken when it “collapses” into one state. The observer (or detector) becomes a part of the quantum system. This is the principle of superposition. Because an electron can be found in any of the probability-allowed “shell” locations, this interpretation assumes that the electron really is at all the locations or states at once and only assumes a fixed state when measured. This assumption extends to all of the characteristics of the electron such as position, spin or momentum. This assumption also extends to all other subatomic particles and photons (energy particles).

The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Theory also says the electron exists in one or the other allowed orbital level but does not exist anywhere between.   When a quantum of energy is absorbed the electron is said to pop out of existence in the original shell and simultaneously pop into existence in the new shell. But, since the electron shell defines a probability, and most of the time the electron exists in one of these shells, the probability of finding it anywhere between is statistically infinitesimal.   It is said not to exist there, and it is thus called “forbidden.” Is it only an extremely small probability or are we talking about its actual existence? The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Theory says it is the latter. Other interpretations of Quantum Theory differ as to what actually happens. See list below.

Uncertainty Principle: Ontology or Epistomology?

 In trying to measure these discrete orbitals and their electron locations and momenta, it became apparent that measurement of any kind disturbed the system so that only one of two coupled parameters could be determined at any one time, e.g. position and momentum (or speed). This led to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that it is impossible to know both the position and the momentum of any one subatomic particle at the same time. The system is disturbed by measurement because measuring subatomic particle parameters is like administering eye drops with a fire hose. Because the subatomic particles are so small compared to any means of measuring their parameters, what is measured is in a disturbed condition.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was meant to be a statement of experimental limitations, not that location and momentum (or other coupled parameters) did not exist in a fixed state at the same time. However, Bohr and other Copenhagen interpretation proponents interpreted it that way, assuming that atoms or atomic particles were never in a fixed state until measured, and that uncertainty is a fundamental characteristic of subatomic particles, not just an experimental limitation. Thus they have substituted ontology (being) for epistemology (ability to know). Heisenberg never accepted the principle of superposition or non-locality claimed in the Copenhagen interpretation.

Superposition:

 Edwin Schrodinger provided the mathematical equations for the behavior of electromagnetic waves that are used in quantum mechanics[2]. These probabilistic differential wave equations are linear (first order), that is, they can be plotted as straight lines on a graph. Superposition is a concept in mathematics stating that in linear equations all of the contributing factors must add up to the net effect of each factor individually. Since Schrodinger’s equations for waves are linear, it is assumed that their application to subatomic particles is also linear. From there it is a leap of faith to assume that particles don’t just have the capability of being in different states, but that they are simultaneously in all possible states at once. Instead of just being a mathematical concept, superposition now was applied directly to subatomic particles in a real physical sense.

However, Schrodinger did not agree with this Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. He came up with an example within everyone’s sphere of experience that illustrated the absurdity of their assumed superposition. This was the famous Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment. He set up the experiment so that a cat in a closed box could be either alive or dead, depending on whether a radioactive particle spontaneously decayed setting off a mechanism that released a deadly poison gas. In this thought experiment, using the Copenhagen interpretation of superposition, since we don’t know what state the cat is in until the box is opened, the cat is both dead and alive until it is opened at which time the cat becomes either dead or alive. The act of observing somehow must cause the cat to assume either a dead or alive state. In all other realms, this would be called Magical Thinking. Meant to point out the weakness or absurdity of superposition, it has been used to illustrate the opposite through convoluted “reasoning” to make it fit the Copenhagen or similar interpretations.

 Communication at a distance:

 The idea of instantaneous communication and action at a distance is a consequence of this assumed superposition where particles did not assume a fixed state until observed. By Pauli’s Exclusion Principle, no two electrons in the same orbital can be in the same quantum state. Each must differ in some way, for example they must have opposite spins. The two particles are said to be entangled since each must be in the opposite state to the other.   If one of the electrons is emitted and travels relatively far away, when one of the electrons is measured (observed), it collapses into a fixed state and simultaneously the other one collapses into the opposite state that can be confirmed when it is measured. This implies speed of communication faster than the speed of light, the assumed upper limit of speed[3].

Einstein thought that quantum action at a distance was an illusion based on the assumption of superposition, aka non-locality. If particles are assumed to have fixed states, although unknown to an observer, the action at a distance is no mystery. It only implies that entangled states, e.g. opposite spins, persist after separation. When one of the particles is measured, you automatically know the state of the other since they must be the opposite of each other, whether together of separated. Einstein spent the latter part of his career trying to prove this.

Other Interpretations:

There are more than a dozen other interpretations. The most popular, among a long list, (see table following), are the Copenhagen interpretation and its variants, the Many Worlds interpretation and the Ensemble interpretation. Variants of the Copenhagen interpretation involve either the observer or the cat (as observer and participant) as being parts of the quantum system. Another, the Many Worlds interpretation is even more speculative. In this scenario, each time a subatomic particle collapses and “chooses” a fixed state, reality splits in two and both possible realities still exist, but in different undetectable dimensions. Think of this as a time series of pictures or a strip of movie film. At the decision point, the one series becomes two, and at the next decision point, becomes four, etc. ad infinitum.

The Ensemble interpretation states that Quantum Mechanics can only be applied to statistically significant numbers of particles, not to individual particles. Since the wave equations describe probabilities, it would be meaningless to apply probabilities or statistics to single particles. This is the interpretation favored by Einstein but is discounted by leading QM physicists. Similar realistic interpretations such as those proposed by de Broglie-Bohm and science philosopher Karl Popper assume real particles with real positions and real wave functions that do not need to “collapse” upon measurement. I tend to prefer these theories because of their realism.

“The attempt to conceive the quantum-theoretical description as the complete      description of the individual systems leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which become immediately unnecessary if one accepts the interpretation that the description refers to ensembles of systems and not to individual systems.”

—A. Einstein in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist

Is the universe really indeterminant?

As a consequence of the probabilistic view of the subatomic world, Quantum Theory leads to a conclusion that events are not deterministic, but rather are indeterminate; that they just happen without actual connections between cause and effect. If deterministic, then events in the past must predict future events as causal antecedents. In the macro or “real” world, everything has a cause or causes, whether known or not. Determinism is the accepted view or apparent state of the real universe because, knowing the mass, position and the momentum of a (larger) body, plus all of the influences on it and the mathematical equations governing its movement, one can (in theory) calculate its position and speed at any other time in the future or the past. This is the basis of celestial mechanics by which planets, etc. are tracked.

The question is: since we don’t know for sure what the outcome according to QM will be, is it really indeterminate or are there certain things we don’t or can’t know about the system that only makes it look indeterminate? If it were possible to know all of the parameters and influences without disturbing the system could we, with certainty, predict outcomes? According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, the universe is really indeterminant at the atomic level and only LOOKS determinant at the macroscopic level. This eliminates the infinite series of cause and effect, and therefore the question of a first cause.

 

[1] See also Andrew Ancel Gray at http://modelofreality.org/cgi-bin/iet.cgi

[2] Side note: These equations assume massless particles and waves. Since real particles have mass, particle physicists assume there is a particle that gives all other particles mass. The Higgs boson is the assumed particle that creates mass when a particle is in a Higgs field.

[3] It should be noted that many thought experiments and most actual experiments have been done using light, not subatomic particles. The results of these actual experiments depend on your interpretation of Quantum Theory. See other interpretations that follow.

Major QM Interpretations  (click to follow link)

Carbon Dioxide is plant food and increases growth rates

kaykiser

Animals exhale Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and breathe Oxygen (O2), while plants use CO2 and exhale O2. Professional greenhouses often add extra CO2 to increase growth rates. Increased plant growth removes much of the CO2 released into the atmosphere. Between pre-industrial and present times, studies show an average of 15% increase in plant growth rates, with some species increased many times that, e.g. young pine trees. Increased plant growth rates and wider distribution of arable (farmable) land due to warming as well as improved farming practices can solve the so-called overpopulation problem. If much of the data used in the climate models are based on proxy data from tree rings, and growth has been increased by CO2, does that mean that the data is artificially skewed toward “warmer” results? Hmmm.

Plant Growth Chart 1.png

Figure 1. Comparison of Plant Growth at Pre-industrial CO2 levels (295 ppm in pink), at 383 ppm and 600 ppm (in blue) in Dry Wheat, Wet Wheat, Oranges, Orange Trees and Young Pine Trees. Note Percent increases.
Source: Review Article: “Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Willie Soon (1), Sallie L. Baliunas(1), Arthur B. Robinson (2), Zachary W.Robinson (2) Climate Research. 13, 149-164, (1999)

(1) Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

(2) Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523

A. Critics created the “progressive nitrogen limitation hypothesis,” which assumes that increased growth rates of trees would deplete poor soils of nitrogen, thus mediating the positive effects of increased CO2. This is a scenario based on theory, not reality, which stubbornly refuses to support the hypothesis. Many studies[1] show that, contrary to the hypothesis, although roots grow deeper and produce more fine hairs, soil and forest floor are enriched in nitrogen from biological sources, i.e. increased root mass and leaf litter supporting beneficial microbes in the soil.

B. One benefit of increased CO2 is that the stomata (openings) of leaves, which take in CO2 and emit water vapor and oxygen, are reduced, leading to less water loss, enhanced water use and improved tolerance to dryer conditions. At elevated CO2 levels, stomata do not need to be open as far to allow sufficient CO2 in for photosynthesis and, as a result, less water is lost through transpiration[2]. In controlled studies, an additional benefit of reduced stomata openings is a reduction of ozone damage.

C. The increased rate of growth of plants, from forests to sea algae, results in more of certain cooling aerosols being produced. These include Carbonyl Sulfide (COS) from soil and seas that become highly reflective sulfate in the stratosphere to reflect more solar radiation back into space, Iodo-compounds from sea algae that nucleate clouds to reflect more solar radiation back into space, dimethyl sulfide (DMS), from seas that nucleates clouds and other aerosols such as isoprene from trees with similar effects.

D.  Hormesis is a phenomenon, commonly seen in medicine and nutrition, where a low concentration or dose results in a positive effect, but a larger dose results in damage. For instance, some salt and water are necessary to good health, but beyond a certain point, ingesting more can be harmful or fatal. The effect of CO2 on plant life appears to be one such system. Increased CO2 obviously benefits plant life, but it is uncertain at what level CO2 might have a detrimental effect on growth. In professional greenhouses and experiments, even ten times the current level is still beneficial.

Hormesis Chart 1

Figure 2.  Illustration of how Carbon Dioxide is beneficial to plants through Hormesis. Horizontal Axis is Increasing CO2 level.

Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/Earth’s Response to Increasing CO2: An Example of Hormesis? August 11th, 2014

[1] Example: Phillips, R.P., Finzi, A.C. and Bernhardt, E.S. 2011. “Enhanced root exudation induces microbial feedbacks to N cycling in a pine forest under long-term CO2 fumigation”. Ecology Letters 14: 187-194.

[2] See review article of research papers: “Responses of agricultural crops to free-air CO2 enrichment” Kimball, B.A., Kobayashi, K. and Bindi, M., Advances in Agronomy 77: 293-368 2002.

Why CO2 is not the cause of climate change

kaykiser

Does Carbon Dioxide cause climate change?

a) Carbon dioxide is a minor player in any further warming. It is uniformly distributed in the atmosphere but only absorbs infrared (heat) in a very narrow wavelength range. The CO2 wavelength range is outside the range of most of the solar radiance that penetrates our atmosphere. It falls roughly inside the wavelength range of temperatures re-radiated when solar radiation heats the earth’s surface. The atmospheric CO2 already absorbs almost all of the radiation that it can in that range. Most of the warming effect of CO2 has already occurred in the past and is one of the reasons our planet is not a frozen wasteland. Any increase in CO2 will have a very minor effect. With CO2 absorption near saturation, almost all of the re-radiated heat in that wavelength range is already being trapped, so it can have little or no effect on future increases in temperature or supposed forcing of water vapor. With CO2 essentially eliminated as a source, any increases in temperature must be from some other source.

Absorption of gases – note narrow CO2 bands & broad water bands.

‎ http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission_png

Source: Robert A. Rohde (Dragons flight at English Wikipedia) – This figure was created by Robert A. Rohde from published data and is part of the Global Warming Art project. http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/stud…

This figure requires a bit of explaining. The top spectrum shows the wavelengths at which the atmosphere transmits light and heat as well as the “black body” idealized curves for no absorption. It is a little misleading because the data is not based on actual solar and earth data. It is based on two experimental heat sources, one centered at 5525 K (5252o C or 9485o F), the approximate temperature of solar radiation, and one centered in the range of 210 to 310 K (-63o C to 36.8o C or -82oF to 98o F), the approximate temperature range of re-radiated heat from the earth. In reality solar radiation power, (Watts/m2/micron), shown in red, is six million times as strong as the power of re-radiated heat from the earth, shown in blue.

The other spectra are absorption[1] spectra. The top one shows the relative percent absorption by total atmospheric gases at various wavelengths, (note that this spectrum is practically the inverse of the transmission spectrum above it), and the spectra below that show the absorption wavelength ranges of individual atmospheric gases, but not the relative strength of that absorption in reality. As experimental, not real atmospheric, data they can only tell us the wavelength ranges of the absorption, not their relative strengths.

Note that CO2 absorbs in the 15 micron range[2], which is within both the range of re-radiated heat and the strong absorption by water vapor of which the CO2 peak forms a mere shoulder. This is used to claim forcing of water vapor by CO2, without regard to the near-saturation level of CO2. Lesser CO2 peaks in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron ranges also only contribute in a minor way, the first is completely covered by a water vapor absorption peak and the second forms a shoulder in another water vapor peak. These minor peaks occur in a region where both solar radiation and re-radiation are minimized. Methane and nitrous oxide are also shown to be minor players, having narrow absorption ranges and low concentrations. Note too that ozone blocks most of the ultraviolet light from the sun.

b.) Water is by far the most important greenhouse gas/liquid in the form of vapor, high and low altitude clouds, rain and snow, which both absorb and reflect sunlight and re-radiated heat from the surface. Water vapor is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, being concentrated near the earth, but strongly absorbs heat in a wide range of wavelengths. More heat means more water vapor evaporating from the oceans. Sounds pretty scary, doesn’t it? Contrary to what is assumed by climate modelers, who use this to claim forcing by CO2, the extra vapor doesn’t remain as vapor. It quickly forms low altitude clouds that strongly reflect in-coming sunlight and heat into space. Any re-radiated heat from the surface that may be trapped by clouds is a small fraction compared to the in-coming solar radiation, so blocking solar radiance has a net cooling effect that overwhelms any increases in trapped re-radiation. High altitude clouds tend to trap heat from being re-radiated into space, but have little effect because the increases in cloud cover due to warming are mostly in low altitude clouds.

[1] Transmission and Absorption are inversely related by the formula A = 1/log T.

[2] The horizontal axis is a log scale in microns so that the 1 to 10 range is in units of 1 and the 10 to 70 range is in tens.

NOTE: Republished from July 22, 2015 Post (media link broken and here restored)

Want to know more about this and other Modern Myths including climate change, evolution, origin of life, Big Bang cosmology or quantum physics? See related posts on this website or buy the book Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy Has Corrupted Science in print or as e-book/Kindle on line at WND Superstore (the publisher) or at Amazon, Books-a-Million or Barnes & Noble .

What about Climate Change?

kaykiser

CLIMATE CHANGE: PHILOSOPHY DISGUISED AS SCIENCE

For a current example of philosophy and/or politics disguised as science, we need look no further than the climate change debate. Regardless of the merits of the case for the Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW theory that manmade carbon dioxide is the cause of climate change, the way it has been advocated is more akin to a political campaign than to a dispassionate search for truth. Political action is advocated that would drastically change our world, crippling industry and technological progress while leaving developing nations to flounder in their poverty. The two pronged approach of this philosophy is to curtail both technology and population.

Developed countries are said to hog all the resources at the expense of developing countries. People are said to be the problem, and advanced societies must be brought down to near subsistence levels while primitive societies are not raised from their squalor. But is any of this true? Is it science or is it politics? Unfortunately, it is more about politics, philosophy and belief than about science. Are there too many people, and are subsistent societies cleaner and less ecologically harmful? Are developed nations really hogging all of the resources at the expense of developing ones? The answer to each of these questions is NO.

Typical political tactics employed include:

  1. Appeal to authority, (a logical fallacy): the “consensus of scientists” with only a very small, elite group deemed qualified to understand or comment on it.

2.  Appeal to ignorance(a logical fallacy): It must be increasing CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) because we can’t find any other cause – but we aren’t looking very hard at things like wind and water cycles or solar activity.

3.  Depend on statistics and computer models instead of real historical facts and experimental data. Remember GIGO – Garbage In, Garbage Out. A model is only as good as the data used or left out, the type of mathematical calculations based on that data and assumptions and conclusions made.

4.  Use fear to sell the agenda: Use warnings of catastrophic consequences if action is not taken immediately by governments, industry and individuals based on models of a poorly understood atmospheric and planetary system. (The Con: “special today just for you but you must call within the next 30 minutes or you’ll miss out.” or “You can save the planet, so call your congressman today before it’s too late.”)

5.  Use guilt and shame to get people, governments and industries to “go green” and curtail the activities that use fossil fuels or otherwise emit CO2.

    1. Do you use incandescent light bulbs? Then you’re killing the planet because you’re consuming power from fossil fuel driven power plants. The government must phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of LED or compact fluorescents, (which contain mercury, a primary pollutant); we must regulate power plants to insure maximum efficiency regardless of increased cost to the consumer, which hurts the poor most.
    2. Do you eat beef? You’re killing the planet because of methane from cows. The government must regulate the methane from cows.
    3. Do you Fly, drive or use a ferry or train?  You’re killing the planet because of fossil fuel consumption. The government must demand more efficient transportation – even if CAFE[1] standards demand lighter and less safe vehicles that are killing people.
    4. Do you use manmade fibers or plastics in any form? You’re killing the planet because it takes fossil fuels to produce them – never mind that most of these things get put in a landfill, which is a form of sequestering carbon. The government must regulate the industries that produce them – and the landfills, too.
    5. Do you use paper products? You’re killing the planet because trees that could consume CO2 are cut down to produce paper. Never mind that trees are farmed and harvested and new trees are planted to more than replace those used. Younger trees consume CO2 at a faster rate per ton than older trees.

6.  Use the press to promote their views and disparage the opposition in the form of propaganda. (TV, radio, internet, movies, books, magazine and journal articles, newspapers)

    1. Present a parade of “experts” and dire predictions as absolute settled facts, not as projections of a computer model.
    2. Sensationalize and exaggerate any “fact” that supports the global warming theme and downplay or fail to report on things that don’t.
    3. Declare that the polar bears are drowning because the sea ice is melting. Never mind that polar bears can swim up to 60 miles between feeding areas, that there is no net loss of sea ice over time and that polar bear numbers are increasing.
    4. Have a storm, flood or drought? Blame it on Climate Change. Make it sound biblical in proportions and the worst in history.
    5. Have a problem with mosquitos because of a particularly wet spring? It must be Global Warming.
    6. Are the seas rising at the same rate they have been rising for centuries[2]? Oh, my God, our cities will soon be underwater and we’re all going to drown!

7.  Demonize anyone who disagrees as “deniers” with the unspoken implication that they are on a moral level with holocaust deniers. Climate experts that aren’t on board with the whole global warming scenario and who have DATA to back it up are called “just weathermen” who are unqualified to comment, even though many of them have better credentials than many of the AGW proponents.

8.  Exclude from publication or grants, any research that doesn’t agree with their conclusions, and then declare that there are few peer reviewed papers on the other side. Never mind that government funding is overwhelmingly on one side. Journals such as Science and Nature have become advocates instead of unbiased scientific publications.

9.  Hide raw and analyzed data and analysis methods from other researchers who wish to verify the work. Real science always shares data and methods with other researchers so their results can be verified. This one includes the “massaging” of the data to say something it doesn’t. The Climate-gate scandal was all about hiding the data and massaging it to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and to create a “hockey stick” that was used to alarm governments into drastic control measures.   When other researchers finally got hold of the (massaged) data[3] and analysis methods, it was discovered that any random set of numbers, when plugged into the formula, produced a similar “hockey stick.” This showed that the analysis algorithm on which the computer models were based was worse than worthless.

Recorded temperature throughout history (red) vs. IPCC model (blue)

Comparison of graphs published by earlier and later versions of the IPCC Assessment on Climate Change. Note that the later graph eliminated both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.  Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/10/when-the-ipcc-disappeared-the-medieval-warm-period/  Note also that the vertical temperature scale is less than a degree above and below today’s temperature, which is set near zero on the graph.

  • The data for the line marked Moberg is available through NOAA website and is from “Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data” Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613 – 617, 10 February 2005. Anders Moberg1, Dmitry M. Sonechkin2, Karin Holmgren3, Nina M. Datsenko2 & Wibjörn Karlén3 1 Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 2 Dynamical-Stochastical Laboratory, Hydrometeorological Research Centre of Russia, Bolshoy Predtechensky Lane 11/13, Moscow 123 242, Russia 3 Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden

10.  Ignore other factors that may contribute to or mediate the supposed effects of manmade carbon dioxide (such as water vapor, high and low altitude clouds, methane, increased plant growth, ocean sequestering or release, solar activity cycles, precession of earth’s tilt, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc.)

Manmade global warming or climate change as it has come to be called[4] is said to be an established fact, and the consequences are dire unless global governments act now to mitigate its effects. The polar ice caps and glaciers will melt away; the oceans will rise and drown coastal and island regions; droughts, floods, storms and temperatures will all increase and millions, dare I say billions, will die. But is any of it true, and is it science? The answer is NO. While there has been general warming since the “Little Ice Age” of the 17th and 18th centuries overlain with periods of lesser heating and cooling, is the change good or bad? Is it unusually rapid now and will these alleged trends continue into the future? Is it extreme enough to cause the dire effects predicted and should global governments act now to prevent the predicted disastrous consequences? It is important to know if these modeled projections are reliable predictions and if real, is real science involved in any meaningful way. What do we really know about it?

NOTE: IPCC temperature chart was reinserted 8/22/2020 due to broken original link.

[1] CAFE Standards are Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards first mandated by Congress in 1975 during the energy crisis. These standards have been continually tightened for even greater fuel efficiency. The result is lighter, smaller, less protective and less safe cars that are contributing to highway crash deaths.

[2] Seas have been rising since the Little Ice Age in the 17th and 18th centuries at about 7 inches per century.

[3] Raw data was actually destroyed to prevent others from getting it through a Freedom on Information request.

[4] Recently there have been efforts to define it as climate disruption or climate catastrophe, implying that a tipping point is near