Thursday, January 28, 2010

Part I - Of Pastor Mikey's "Stupid Test"

Bereft of ideas, exposed as a scientific fraud who is totally clueless about even the most basic scientific principles - "Pastor Mike" has now conjured up a "test" out of desperation.
'Questions for Evolutionists'
He hopes his "stupid test" will prove that atheists-evolutionists are the dunces - but as I will show, he and his dismal flock are really the ones without any intellectual moorings. Indeed most of the questions he proposes could be answered easily by anyone with the least scientific training. Alas - he lacks such, as his absurd recent attacks on evolution disclose.

Here are his questions - and the answers in turn:

1) Where did the space for the universe come from ?

This is an example of a dumb question, since there is no "space" of the universe as such but rather space -time. In terms of origin then, BOTH space and time originated as the single unit of space-time at the instant of the Big Bang. The current expansion of the universe, as indicated in our red shift measurements, therefore shows an expansion in space and time. Further, we can actually use basic physics (based on the sum of potential and kinetic energies) to trace back in time the properties of the universe to the earliest epochs.

We use the cosmic density equation:

rho(t) = 3G t^ 2 / 8 pi

where rho(t) is the cosmic density at time t, G is the Newtonian gravitational constant and t is the time we can susbstitute in.

For example, say we want to know the density at a time of 0.03 seconds after the Big Bang. Then, substitute t = 0.03 sec, and the value of G (assuming it has not changed with time, and is truly constant!)

rho(t) = 1.98 x 10^ 12 kg/ m^3

This is a truly whopping density that fully comports with our expectation that the Big Bang was initiated in an extremely high density state. By way of comparison, plutonium has a density of 19, 200 kg/ m3 . Thus, the cosmic density at t = 0.03 sec after the primordial fireball was just over 100 million times more dense than plutonium!

An alternative method (but more advanced mathematically) is to use Einstein's tensor equations for general relativity (e.g. ds^2 = dx^u g_uv dx^u = dt^2 – R^2(t) [ (dr^2/ 1 – kr^2) + r^2 d (S)^2], where d(S)^2 is the solid angle differential and k = const.) to obtain the Planck energy at which all currently separate forces (electric, gravitational, strong nuclear etc) would be unified. We obtain a Planck energy of 10^19 GeV (giga -electron volts) of energy, at a time of 10^-44 seconds of cosmic age.

Not that any of this will be processed by Mike!

2)Where did matter come from ?

Again, matter came from the same event as space-time: the Big Bang. However, matter couldn't manifest initially since the temperatures were far too hot (estimated at 10^12 Kelvin). So, we can use thermal physics - to track back from the current microwave background temperature (residual temp. of the Big bang at 2.7K) to ascertain that the first atomic particles probably couldn't form until at least 300,000 years past the BB - when the radiation and gas decoupled.

As to the origin of the Big Bang itself, this occurred as a result of the universe spontaneously incepted - as already descibed in a prior blog article:

Current quantum mechanics - namely the energy -time uncertainty principle, fully allows for the spontaneous origin of the cosmos as a sub-quantal domain that evolves and expands in the aftermath. See for example T. Padmanabhan's excellent paper 'Universe Before Planck Time: A Quantum Gravity Model' in Physical Review D, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 756.

3)Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity , inertia , etc . ) ?

Another dumb question. Natural laws "don't come" from anywhere, they are implicit in the behavior and properties of the universe from the time of its inception. Thus, by virtue of the inception of the cosmos with particular properties - later laws were uncovered by humans. Thus, the humans - such as Isaac Newton and Einstein- revealed the laws' operation in their mathematical & physical investigations, but the laws were always there awaiting such discovery. People, after all, fell off Mayan temples or rock towers long before Newton enunciated the law of gravitation. Chariots crashed into each other long before the first law of motion (defining inertia).

4)How did matter get so perfectly organized ?

Another dumb question, since most "matter" isn't organized, far less "perfectly organized". (And if someone is asking a question this dumb, they really ought not be asking anything at all! Certainly as a ruse to depict their opponents (evolutionists) as "dunces"!)

93% of all content in the universe is either as dark matter (23%) or dark energy (70%). Dark matter itself occurs in either baryonic or non-baryonic forms, depending on whether the matter reacts with radiation or not. If it doesn’t, it’s non-baryonic. Baryons include protons and neutrons, while non-baryons include electrons and neutrinos. Non-baryonic dark matter further breaks down into cold dark matter and hot dark matter. The terms hot and cold are not so much indicative of current temperatures, as the phase of the early universe at which the particular dark matter ‘decoupled’ from the hot radiation background.

In any case, this dark matter can't be assessed for any organization. Neither can dark energy. Dark energy arose from studies of Type 1a supernovae which plots show the cosmos is now accelerating. The only feasible agent to explain this acceleration is dark energy which can be defined using an equation of state:

w = (Pressure/ energy density) = -1

This is consistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity - which one could say approaches the status of a 'basic law of physics'. In this case, the existence of a negative pressure is consistent with general relativity's allowance for a "repulsive gravity" - since any negative pressure has associated with it gravity that repels rather than attracts. (See, e.g. 'Supernovae, Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe', by Saul Perlmutter, in Physics Today, April, 2003, p. 53.) Of course, simple algebra applied to the above also shows that the energy density would have to be negative, e.g. energy density = - (pressure). Thus, we see that Padmanabhan’s “negative energy density” (to incept the cosmos spotaneously) referenced earlier is really a form of dark energy!

The 7% of matter remaining still isn't preponderantly "organized" since more than 99% of it is plasma (hot gas in which one or more electrons of the gas are ionized. Mayhap Mikey needs to look up these terms too). Now, if 99% is plasma, then only 1% is matter that potentially can be organized (say as galaxies, planets etc.). But if one takes the total fraction of the universe for which this applies: 1% of 7% - it comes to 0.07% of the entire universe. And whatever orgnization occurs within this tiny proportion can easily be accommodated by appeal to gravitational forces acting in concert with electro-static forces, for example to shape proto-stars, and subsequently spin off blobs of hot gas that later cool to become their planets....via transfer of angular momentum within the gas.

5)Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing ?

Another dumb question, since: a) the energy was already part and parcel of the universe via spontaneous quantum inception, and b) it isn't there to do any degree of "organizing" -since as I previously noted most of its appears as dark energy. The remnant 0.07% of mass-energy subject to some organization mainly falls under the influence of gravitational potential energy - and as any physics student knows this is based on the basic expression:

V = - GMm/r

where V is the potential energy, M and m the masses to which it applies where m is putatively revolving about larger mass M. And G is the gravitational constant with r the distance between centers.

Then we have all the dark energy causing acceleration (which likely originated with the conformal quantum domain that gave rise to the initial spontaneous inception) and not likely subject to V, and I already provided the equation of state for that. Then there is the mass-energy resident already in the matter of the (cooled) content, since we know by Einstein's equation: E = mc^2 that energy and mass are transformable into each other. Thus, the mass-energy of the universe was already fixed at its inception. It didn't "come" from anywhere - as if some outside agent.

6) When , where , why , and how did life come from dead matter ?

Well, at least this is a halfway intelligent question, for once, though all "matter" (not otherwise embellished) is assumed "inert" without having to say so. But one answer is that it didn't. As I noted earlier - two blog posts earlier) one possibility is that life was "seeded" on Earth from extraterrestrial objects, such as meteoroids. Living cells could have been protected by the outer (hard) shell of the meteroid and we know that water can occur inside too. If these cells were in that water, then the meteroid crackes after landing, they could emerge on planet Earth and evolve.

Now, as to how living cells could arise from matter on Earth (theory of noogensis- NOT evolution) the best scenario we have is as follows:

Some water droplets alighting on dry land altered shape to a sphere and maintained it for a length of time. . More specifically, they were suspended colloidal micro-spheres capable of exchanging energy with their surroundings. To get energy, these self-sustaining coacervate droplets could use one or two basic reactions involving adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and adenosine diphosphate:

L*M + R + ADP + P -> R + L + M + ATP

ATP + X + Y + X*Y -> ADP + X*Y + X*Y + P

In the above, L*M is some large, indeterminate, energy-rich compound that could serve as ‘food’. Whatever the specific form, it’s conceived here to have two major parts capable of being broken to liberate energy. Compound R is perhaps a protenoid, but in any case able to act on L*M to decompose it. Concurrent with the first reaction is the possibility of a second, entailing autocatalytic molecules X*Y.

These molecules could accelerate their own formation, using ATP. On the basis of the chemical reactions, the hypothetical coacervate would consist of the combination: X*Y + R. Now, what properties ought we expect for any such primitive life form? These include: simple organization, ability to increase in size, and ability to maintain itself over extended intervals. Does the coacervate meet these conditions? Well, it has a simple organization, consisting of the molecules X*Y and R. It can increase its size by synthesizing more of X*Y, growing until hydrodynamically unstable.

Finally, it can maintain itself over indefinite intervals, so long as it can extract the chemical components it needs. What about replication? We expect that this is feasible when it splits into ‘daughters’ after growing too large. Then, so long as each has some of the protenoid R there is the capacity for replication.

Will the "pastor" get any of this? Doubtful!

7) When , where , why , and how did life learn to reproduce itself ?

See previous answer, for replication!

8)With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce ?

Another dumbo question, since the pastor already presumes a "first cell capable of sexual reproduction" but doesn't logically extrapolate the consequences from his assumption. Hence he answers his own question- but can't find it- since in mitosis cells always produce in duplicate! Mitosis, the process by which a eukaryotic (first) cell would have separated the chromosomes in its cell nucleus into two identical sets in two nuclei. Back to basic biology - this would be followed immediately by cytokinesis, which divided the nuclei, cytoplasm, organelles and cell membrane into two cells containing roughly equal shares of these cellular components. These cells - like the original - could be capable of sexual reproduction!

9) Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival ? ( Does the individual , or the species , have a drive to survive ? How do you explain this ? )

Another dumbo question, since clearly it is by the most rapid reproduction that a given species can out-survive competitors. The assumption of "decreasing chances of survival" is just that- since it assumes (like in a poor human family) that the species will starve and die out if numbers are excessive. In fact this is rubbish. What the hardier members do, if food srouces are too scare, is to cannibailze each other. This is also possibly what happened to Neandertal Man - at the hands (mouths?) of Cro-Magnon Man 50,000 or so years ago. (The other theory, of course, is that Cro-Magnon simply out-reproduced Neandertal Man and thus overwhelmed the latter's numbers in terms of competition for food sources)

As for "drive to survive" - every individual normal organism has what could be called such. They certainly don't have a "drive to perish".

10) How can mutations ( recombining of the genetic code ) create any new , improved varieties ? ( Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books . )

Yet one more dumb question, showing our pastor doesn't comprehend mutation. For example, exposure of members of Drosophilia melanogaster (the fruit fly) to x-rays can induce a variety of spontaneous gene changes (mutations) in offspring of succeeding generations, including: variations in eye color, the number of bristles on the thorax and the shape of the wings. Whether evolution can be said to occur as a result of mutant genes depends on the degree to which the mutation is incorporated into the genome (gene code map) and stabilized.

To get "improved" varieties, it is more likely multiple mutations would have to be induced (for example when humans induce mutations in breeds of dogs to get a specific dog type, or farmers do it with cows to produce more milk). According to Jacques Monod ('Chance and Necessity', 1968):

"...any appreciable evolution, like the differentiation of two very nearly related species, is the result of a great many independent mutations successively accumulated in the parent species and then, still at random, 'recombined' thanks to the gene flow promoted by sexuality"

Evolution (say to an adaptive advantage) may be said to have reliably occurred in a given species when significant genetic information - translated into one or more morphological alterations, is passed on via reproduction. Provided these alterations constitute an adaptative advantage, a chance exists for the new characteristic to appear in the organism. The organism will therefore have undergone evolution by mutation.
11) Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor ?
Maybe - but that's a hypothesis that has to be vetted, tested. In addition, you're starting your hypothesis with a built-in logical fallacy known as 'ignotum per ignotius' - or using the the not well explained or understood ('Creator') to account for similarities between animals. (Which can already be accounted for by natural selection, in terms of the species having the same environments, and hence having undergone the same adaptations over time. All Darwin's studies of the Galapagos Marine Iguana, for example, showed it evolved uniquely there by adapting to that environment. Before its diffusion, it was found no place else. Hence, the properties - structures it has (feeding almost exclusively on marine algae, expelling the excess salt from nasal glands while basking in the sun) is uniquely a product of its peculiar adaptation. Thus, there is NO "similarity" of "design" (which must be proven) between it and any other Marine iguanas - since there are none.
Now, what creationism must do is account for this "lone wolf" or outlier critter, in terms of its proposed creator. That means first, giving a definition of this creator, and also the necessary and sufficient conditions for its existence - as well as it potentials for operation. In addition, answer why this "creator" - if it was so great and powerful- couldn't create Marine iguana species all over the planet. Why just the Galapagos? Why not stick a (similar design - but not exact) version in Barbados? WHY? WHY? WHY?
Lastly, if you're going to advance this creator "hypothesis", then what tests will you use (like evolutionists do) to try and falsify it? If you won't make the attempt then you're not practicing science, but expounding religious belief: that "God" just stepped out of the clouds and made 'em.

No comments: