The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[Coleus]

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit. Instead, the Christian vision of a supernatural design is being increasingly affirmed. “Evolution is now a datum proven beyond any reasonable doubt and no longer a theory, it’s not even worth taking the trouble to discuss it.” This is what a spokesman proclaimed at the Festival of Science held in Genoa in November 2005, thereby neglecting a very important aspect of modern science—the need to be open to new perspectives. Instead, the truth is quite the opposite. Paradoxically, evolutionists are taking an ever greater distance from empirical science and are wrapping themselves up in a dogmatism that borders on ideological fanaticism.

Unprovable Hypothesis
“What is left, then, in evolutionism, that is valid according to the scientific method? Nothing, actually nothing!” This is the conclusion of journalist Marco Respinti in his recent book Processo a Darwin (Darwin on Trial, Piemme, 2007). He continues: "Not one of his postulates can be verified or certified based on the method proper to the physical sciences. His whole claim escapes verification. Based on what, therefore, other than on strong prejudices of an ideological nature, can anyone affirm or continue to affirm that the evolutionist hypothesis is true?"  Indeed, the consistency of a scientific theory is founded on its capacity to be verified empirically, be it through observation of the phenomenon in nature or by reproducing it in the laboratory. The evolutionist hypothesis fails on both counts. “Thus,” Respinti shows, “Darwinism remains simply an hypothesis devoid of empirical or demonstrable foundation, besides being unproven. . . . The evolutionist hypothesis is completely unfounded for it does not master the very domain in which it launches its challenge.”

Respinti reaches this “verdict” after a rigorous “trial of Darwin” in which he analyzes the main arguments that debunk the notorious theory, ranging from nonexistent fossil records to the conflict of Darwinism with genetic science and the flimsiness of the “synthetic theory” of neo-Darwinism, without forgetting the countless frauds that have stained notable evolutionists in their insane quest to fabricate the “proofs” that science tenaciously denied them.  Respinti concludes by denouncing the ideological drift of the evolutionist school: “To categorically affirm the absolute validity of the theories of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution based on the claim that discussing them would be unscientific by definition, is the worst proof that human reason can give of itself.”

A Long Sunset
The sunset of the Darwinist hypothesis has picked up speed over the last two decades. For example, consider the work carried out by the Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, founded in 1987, in the wake of an international interdisciplinary meeting convened “to present and discuss some opinions opposed to the dominant neo-Darwinist paradigm.” Scientists from all over the world participated, including the outstanding geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, then a professor at the University of Perugia, Italy. In 1980, together with Roberto Fondi, now a professor at the University of Siena, Sermonti wrote Dopo Darwin—Critica all’evoluzionismo (After Darwin—A Critique of Evolutionism, Rusconi, 1980). “Biology,” Sermonti explains, “has no proof at all of the spontaneous origin of life, or rather biology has proved its impossibility. There is no such thing as a gradation of life from elementary to complex. From a bacterium to a butterfly to man the biochemical complexity is substantially the same.”   For his part, Fondi shows that from the first appearance of fossils to this day, the variety and riches of living beings have not increased. New groups have replaced older ones, but the intermediate forms that the evolutionists have so frantically searched for do not exist. “The theory of evolution,” Sermonti and Fondi conclude, “has been contradicted as have few other scientific theories in the past.”

In Le forme della vita (The Forms of Life, Armando, 1981), Sermonti unveils other obstacles to Darwinism. According to the renowned geneticist, the “random” origin of life and the gradual transformation of the species through “selective change” are no longer sustainable because the most elementary life is incredibly complex and because it is now proven that replacement of living groups takes place “by leaps” rather than “by degrees.”  Putting together forty years of experience, in 1999 he wrote Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione (Forgetting Darwin—Shadows on Evolution, Rusconi, 1999). With rigorous argumentation, the author demolishes the three pillars of Darwinism: natural selection, sexual mixing and genetic “change.” According to him, history will remember the theory of evolution as the “Big Joke.”

Not Just Creationists
Sermonti has been often accused of being a “creationist” or a “religious fundamentalist” even though he has always said he does not fit his scientific vision into a Christian perspective, and this yet one more aspect to note in the polemic against Darwinism, which many people other than Christians also contest it.  In this sense, it is interesting to note the recent editorial in Il Cerchio, “Seppellire Darwin? Dalla critica del darwinismo agli albori d’una scienza nuova,” ("Bury Darwin? From a Critique of Darwinism to the Dawn of a New Science") containing essays by seven specialists including Sermonti, Fondi and Giovanni Monastra, director of Italy’s National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research. The title refers to the famous phrase by Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics of the University College of Cardiff, “The probability that life was formed from inanimate matter is equal to 1 followed by 40,000 zeros . . . . It is large enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.”

From Dimenticare Darwin—Ombre sull’evoluzione’s introduction: For the first time in Italy, a critique of Darwinism is presented in all its complexity thanks to the interdisciplinary contribution of scholars of several orientations—[b]eyond the polemic between neo-Darwinian fundamentalists and religious integralists, the essay demonstrates how the critique of the now old neo-Darwinist paradigm opens the doors to a new science.

A Crisis of the Positivist Paradigm
Francis Crick, who together with Watson discovered the structure of DNA, openly declared, “An honest man, armed only with the knowledge available to us, could affirm only that, in a certain sense, the origin of life at the moment appears to be rather a miracle,” In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.” Indeed, a lot of faith is required to believe in evolutionism, and it is precisely that faith, of a clearly positivist^[1] mold, that is now beginning to weaken.

In Darwinismo: le ragioni di una crisi (Darwinism: The Reasons of a Crisis), Gianluca Marletta sticks his finger in the wound by observing that “The crisis of Darwinism is above all a crisis of the philosophical paradigms that allowed its success.”  “One cannot understand the origin of this doctrine,” Marletta explains, “without going back to the cultural climate of ‘triumphant positivism’ straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” According to Marletta, Darwinism constituted a wonderful occasion to strengthen the positivistic view of the world being affirmed at that time. Darwinism represented the perfect tool to transplant, into the biological field, the mechanic and materialist paradigms already imposed on the social sciences. This is the true motive of this theory’s success. A motive that now begins to subside with the crisis of the positivist paradigm. This explains the almost fanatical tenacity with which evolutionists are defending their convictions. “Many fear,” concludes Marletta, “that the fall of Darwinism can bring down with it the whole positivist vision of the world.”

God’s Comeback
The crumbling of positivism is bringing back to the limelight issues that a certain conventional wisdom thought to have definitively eliminated. Shaken from the sudden crumbling of old certainties, worried about the chaos that increasingly marks this postmodern age, many people are once again asking the fundamental questions: Does my life have a transcendental meaning? Is there an intelligent project in nature? In short, does God exist?   Sociologist Rosa Alberoni wrote about this in her book, Il Dio di Michelangelo e la barba di Darwin (The God of Michelangelo and Darwin’s Beard), published last November by Rizzoli with a preface by Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace. The onslaught of “Darwin’s worshippers,” Alberoni explains, is carried out by the “usual destructive atheists obsessed with the goal of stamping out Christ and destroying the Judeo-Christian civilization after having sucked its blood and essence.” This sullen assault, however, in the deeply changed ambience of post-modernity, risks being counterproductive: The monkey myth is what really shook ordinary people. Like soldiers woken up by an alarm in the middle of the night, Christian believers and [O]rthodox Jews prepared for the defense. Or rather for the war, because that is what it has become . . . [o]n the symbolic level, the bone of contention is the ancestor of man: God or a monkey? Should one believe in God or in Darwin? This is the substantial nature of the ongoing clash in our civilization.

In other words, a real war of religion looms in the dawn of the Third Millennium. Precisely that which secularists have tried to avoid at all cost.

Footnote:

1. Positivism is the philosophical system created by August Comte (1798–1857), which only accepts the truths that we can reach by direct observation or by experimentation. Thus it denies classical philosophy, theology and all supernatural religion.

[mrjesse]

You seem to have a reasonable understanding of Classical Physics, which puts you head and shoulders above most people : ) As soon as I start to allude to QM or relativity I seem to hit a brick wall.

Thanks - that's good to know. At least we can communicate on the level of Classical Physics. But I'm still baffled by your seeming to consider waves on water to be the same thing as radio waves and that all matter is just waves of nothing..

It's one thing for you to present to me an idea which is in a realm where I have no understanding. But when you seem to be equating (that is to say, pretending that they are equal in all regards) waves in water and radio waves, two areas where I have at least a reasonable understanding, and where I know they are different realms, is very troubling.

As to QM, I have a minimal introductory understanding of QM -- or at least I understand the concept of electrons, for example, the oil drop experiment demonstrated that there was no such thing as a half an electron. Another example of QM that I'm familiar with is that electrons, when falling to a lower orbit, always fall a specific quantity - or at least they emit specific wavelengths which are related to the orbits they fell.

As to spacetime warp, I have not grasped it. I have a very hard time understanding something that I cannot understand intuitively.

Said mrjesse: Ahh, I may just have got a glimmer into your mindset. Does it go like this "Waves of water is when energy is moving through the water being carried by the kinetic motion of the water molecules and that is why we call it waves of water. Likewise, radio waves, which have a medium of nothing, are therefore waves of nothing just like water waves are waves of water?"

Yes, that is it on a gross level : )

What do you mean "on a gross level?" Either it is or it isn't :-) But doesn't your assumption require then that radiowaves do require a medium?

I am purposely silent about my background, perhaps unnecessarily, but so be it : ) I have never been a believer in appeals to authority. My background is not QM or relativity, I am generally just referring to undergrad studies, although I have a couple of patents that utilize principles from those fields (there is that word again : ) )

Appealing to authority is one thing. But saying "Here's what I've done, here's what I've observed" can be a real help when you're trying to explain something to someone. That's also why I kept asking how you arrived at your conclusion that matter is waves of nothing. Was it something a professor told you 20 years ago? was it something you read in a book? Is it your own idea? Etc. When presenting an idea it works best to cover all the bases "I saw this, I read this, I reasoned thus, etc."

So I guess my question still stands -- How did you come by the idea that all matter is waves of nothing? Obviously you didn't measure everything and determine that it was all waves of nothing. Did Feynman say it? Did your professor say it? or is it your own idea, based on Feynman's and other's work? In science it is common and good for the teller of an idea to say "Here's how I came to the conclusion.."

Now it may well be that you would have to just say to me "Sorry, Jesse, you'll have to read the same books I read then I'm sure it will all make sense. It just requires far more knowledge then you seem to have and I can't even converse with you on the topic as a result."

The reason I suggested the reading material is that your background seems to be full of holes. It is important to have a broad familiarity with all of the areas because it makes understanding much easier. The Feynman material is the best, most comprehensive, material I have ever seen and he takes you seamlessly from classical physics to the present. One of the important concepts that is discussed in the very first section is electric fields : )

By the way, I was wondering - have you read all four of the volumes entirely, that you recommended to me?

Also, you never (at least directly) answered my request to tell me what "field" means to you. I've just been using the dictionary definition - but it seems to have a meaning to you beyond that, which I can't figure out.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

"Field" and "Medium" are two totally separate things.

That's a good point. In mulling over LeGrande's last half-dozen or so posts, it seems to me that he believes in the ether theory of light, but with the added twist that the ether does not exist. Hence, waves of nothing.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

there is no ether... waves have to travel in a medium, there is no medium for them to travel in.

You can conclude from this that light is not "waves travelling in a medium". That's what the last 100 years of physics has been trying to tell you.

Einsteins Theory of relativity put it back in as Space-Time. Waves of nothing is Space-time.

x,y,z,t appear as independent variables in Maxwell's equations. How do we reconcile that with your notion that light is waves of x,y,z,t? Should we read Maxwell's equations upside-down?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I will try and explain what I mean by waves of nothing. At the quantum level (and beyond) everything can be modeled with a wave equation, but a wave needs a medium... Originally scientists claimed that there was an Ether that transmitted everything, but Ether was disproved by Mickelson-Morley. So along comes Einstein who really put the dagger into the Ether theory, but low and behold Einstein brought Space-Time into play for his Special Relativity theory. What is Spacetime? It is a mathematical construct or in other words, nothing. That is what waves travel through, nothing. Hence "Waves of nothing", the waves are real though.

A more plausible assessment is that the conclusion "everything is waves of nothing" is a reductio ad absurdum of whatever process of reasoning this word-salad represents.

Here are some attempts at simplified versions, which may or may not be equivalent to the word salad...

1. Light is waves of the ether.
2. The ether does not exist.
therefore,
Light is waves of nothing.

The error is in (1).

1. Light is waves of space-time.
2. Space-time is nothing.
therefore,
Light is waves of nothing.

(1) is erroneous. Who knows what (2) means.

1. Light propagates through space.
therefore,
2. Light is a wave and space is the medium.
3. The medium does not exist,
therefore,
Light is waves of nothing.

And in this case the error is (2) and also in the deduction from (1) to (2).

[LeGrande]

Everything is a wave : )

[LeGrande]

x,y,z,t appear as independent variables in Maxwell's equations. How do we reconcile that with your notion that light is waves of x,y,z,t? Should we read Maxwell's equations upside-down?

How do you read an equation upside-down? I am trying to figure out that transformation : ) Generally we consider equations to be invariant.

[LeGrande]

What do you mean "on a gross level?" Either it is or it isn't :-) But doesn't your assumption require then that radiowaves do require a medium?

That is my point, there is no medium. Gross means in big broad general terms.

So I guess my question still stands -- How did you come by the idea that all matter is waves of nothing? Obviously you didn't measure everything and determine that it was all waves of nothing. Did Feynman say it? Did your professor say it? or is it your own idea, based on Feynman's and other's work? In science it is common and good for the teller of an idea to say "Here's how I came to the conclusion.."

As I told you before, I believe I picked up the term 'waves of nothing' from Laughlin or at least Laughlin produced the ahah factor with me. I think he also explained the emergent properties concept to the point that I understood it too.

By the way, I was wondering - have you read all four of the volumes entirely, that you recommended to me?

Not only that, I have worked out a lot of the math in the 3 Feynman volumes. You will understand what I just said if you ever read them : )

Also, you never (at least directly) answered my request to tell me what "field" means to you. I've just been using the dictionary definition - but it seems to have a meaning to you beyond that, which I can't figure out.

The short answer is that there is simply no quick and dirty answer to what a field is other than it doesn't exist, but it is observable and measurable : ) Is that a contradiction? Well not really, because you don't actually measure and observe the field.

Let me give you something else to think about : ) When you create a field it propagates at the speed of light to infinity. Once the field has been stabilized how fast are the changes in the field? In other words when you look at the Sun, you are seeing it about 7 minutes behind where it actually is, but if you had a sensitive gravity sensor where would it point? At the sun you see or 7 minutes ahead of the sun you see? The answer will help you understand what a field is, it is not a simple concept.

To answer your main question, where did I learn this stuff? Mostly reading and studying, lots of reading and studying, and a few observations and experiments. I know my way around a lab pretty well. I am not someone to take things on faith so I have tried to repeat and get the same same results that are reported. In short, I am a blind man stumbling around trying to figure out where I am.

[mrjesse]

Is Google Books: A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down, by Robert B. Laughlin the Laughlin you're refering to?

I gotta run right now, but will read more and respond more later.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

Is Google Books: A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down, by Robert B. Laughlin the Laughlin you're refering to?

Yes and it is an easy read, but you need the background that the other 4 volumes that I mentioned provide.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Generally we consider equations to be invariant

Here is the question again. Try answering it.

x,y,z,t appear as independent variables in Maxwell's equations. How do we reconcile that with your notion that light is waves of x,y,z,t?

[LeGrande]

x,y,z,t appear as independent variables in Maxwell's equations. How do we reconcile that with your notion that light is waves of x,y,z,t?

When did I say light was waves of x,y,z,t?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

position and momentum do not exist at the same time for particles (the superposition principle)

Why do you call this the superposition principle?

I know it sounds bizarre

It does.

[LeGrande]

Why do you call this the superposition principle?

Can you please go pick up a college level physics book? Or at least just trace topics through Wiki?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Can you please go pick up a college level physics book?

Well, the account of the superposition principle in Dirac's text on QM seems quite different from what you said. Maybe you mean the uncertainty principle.

[mrjesse]

The reason I suggested the reading material is that your background seems to be full of holes.

Thanks for the honest evaluation! This is one of the most accurate and clear statement I think you've made so far! [grin]

When it comes to QM, my understanding is certain to be full of holes. But space-time-warp-theory is different - the whole background is missing - there are no holes! I'll be trying to learn a bit more about that.

(I still think that some of your comparisons involving classical physics are not scientifically supported, or are just illogical or incoherent - but there's no harm in me learning some more from a field new to me!)

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

The underlying reality is bizarre, where things like position and momentum do not exist at the same time for particles (the superposition principle). I know it sounds bizarre but that is the reality.

Cute. But why complicate it with the mystery of particles?

Does a car have a velocity and a position at the same time? Show me! If you try to measure its velocity and its position at the same time you're going to have trouble.

The problem is that "Position" at the root level refers to a static location, while velocity refers to a non-static location. So to say that something has a position and a velocity at the same time (without mentioning a timeframe) is contradictory.

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

[LeGrand said] When did I say light was waves of x,y,z,t?

mrjesse, did you get the impression that LeGrande has been talking about waves of space-time and how everything is waves of space-time?

[mrjesse]

The short answer is that there is simply no quick and dirty answer to what a field is ...

Why not the standard dictionary definition of "7. Physics A region of space characterized by a physical property, such as gravitational or electromagnetic force or fluid pressure, having a determinable value at every point in the region." ?

... other than it doesn't exist, but it is observable and measurable : ) Is that a contradiction? Well not really, because you don't actually measure and observe the field.

By this same reasoning wouldn't you also say that distance does not exist? (I seriously want to know your response to this.)

And I think you are in error or at least sly in stating that we don't actually measure the field. We don't measure light, either, we measure it's intensity. (Or its frequency or polarization.) But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!

For that matter, we can't observe light either -- we only observe what it does to things it hits or otherwise interacts with.

Unless you're talking about a realm which entirely different from the standard realm (which which case you should say that 'There is simply no quick and dirty answer to what a field is in thus-and-such-a-strange-realm.' There certainly IS a very nice quick definition of what a field is in the normal realm.

Just like the fact that we don't observe light but it's effects, and we don't measure light but it's intensity, the same is true for an electric or magnetic field. In an electric field, the strength of the electric field can be measured at any point by the force that it exerts on an electron. Millikan of course used this in his oil droplet experiment. So how can you say that a field cannot be measured?

When you create a field it propagates at the speed of light to infinity.

I think you're being overly dogmatic here. For example, an electric field can be set up completely and entirely contained inside a metal enclosure. For example, if you welded shut a metal box with a 9v battery inside, there would be an electric field inside which would not propagate to infinity.

In other words when you look at the Sun, you are seeing it about 7 minutes behind where it actually is

Please help me out here. If the sun orbited the earth, I'd say you're right. But considering that the earth is rotating while being bathed in the sun's rays, I don't see how you can be right.

I remember well as a child playing in the summer with the garden hose. I would stand there and swing it back and forth as fast as I could, and I could see that the stream of water traveled away from me in a sort of arc. As I did this near a fencepost, I could see that by the time the water hit the post, I wasn't aiming at the post anymore.

But now imagine if I was just standing still pointing the stream of water at the post, but the post was turning -- an observer on the post, as soon as he comes around to my side, will see me exactly where I am because that's where I've been.

Please explain why the sun is about 7 minutes ahead of where it appears. (I honestly want to understand this one, too.) And this one shouldn't require QM, QED, or Relativity to understand!)

I think I know what your problem is. I'd say you think the sun orbits the earth and that you don't know what a field is :-)

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

mrjesse, did you get the impression that LeGrande has been talking about waves of space-time and how everything is waves of space-time?

Ethan Clive Osgoode,

I think he mentioned space-time a couple times in regards to gravity, but I thought he's been talking about waves of nothing, trying to carry the concept of mechano-kinetic water-waves over into the realm of Electro Magnetic Waves.

If I'm understanding him correctly, he'll proceed to then say that space and time are just theoretical constructs which do not actually exist, or something.

But I'd say that he has a desire for the universe to have come into existence out of absolutely nothing by only natural process.

He said"QM is based on waves of nothing, it is the most accurate theory that we have and it may explain the origins of the Universe."(Emph. Mine.)

So I can see why he would argue for all matter being waves of nothing.

As to Quantum Mechanics being based on waves of nothing, I'm not so sure. My understanding and experience with QM is unquestionably primitive, but what he says here does not make sense with the small understanding I do have of QM. For its namesake, quantum of course refers to the indivisible sizes of things - for example electrons. Can't get a half of an electron. I think my power company gips me an electron every month because I'm sure they round up.

Does that answer your question, or did I misunderstand?

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I think he mentioned space-time a couple times in regards to gravity, but I thought he's been talking about waves of nothing,

It seems he offered "waves of Space-time" as a bit of soothing word-salad dressing for "nothing", because "we are made of nothing" was a bit harsh on my ears:

"there is no single experiment that proves that we are all made of nothing. I don't think that is your real question though. You are disagreeing with the conclusion. How about if I said that we are made up of waves of Space-time. Does that help you?"

If I'm understanding him correctly, he'll proceed to then say that space and time are just theoretical constructs which do not actually exist, or something.

Or maybe he's just using "waves of Space-time" as a synonym or placeholder for "nothing", as in the above quote. But then we have the following

"Waves of nothing is Space-time."

Which should make one pause. Think about it. "Nothing" is "waves of Space-time", and "waves of nothing" is "Space-time." Is it not worth pondering this?

As to Quantum Mechanics being based on waves of nothing, I'm not so sure.

You pointed out that "he's... trying to carry the concept of mechano-kinetic water-waves over into the realm of Electro Magnetic Waves" which leads him to waves of nothing in EM, while carrying that same kind of mechanical-ether reasoning over to the realm of QM leads him to waves of nothing there too.

But I think the real problem is much more fundamental, and all the hot air about geodesics and quantum magical-mystery tours is just dust thrown in people's faces. The real problem is the inability to see that this:

1. something is X
2. X is nothing
therefore,
3. something is nothing

is an invalid argument.