can you answer a couple of questions about evolution?

Question

I was wondering about the following things and wanted the pro-evolution crowd to ponder and answer.
Before you insult and tell me that I do not understand anything, I DO! I used to believe in evolution, but there was ABSOLUTLY no overcoming these objections (at least not in print, that I was able to find, and I DID look).

According to the laws of thermodynamics (and other scientific theorims):
1. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Q1: Where did all existant atomic material come from?
2. ALL things break down, wear out, etc... (the law of entropy)
Q2: Since chaos is the end result of everything, how can evolution account for ordered, non-random, events that created functioning eco-systems and life?
3. a body at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an OUTSIDE force
Q3: The theory that the universe is expanding from a central point and ALL atomic mass was in a central area, what was the outside force that cause the big bang?

note to all:
1. I, NOWHERE, MENTIONED GOD
2. I find, logically, that cosmology it intrinsically linked to evolution (biogenesis) because biogenesis is the logical extension of cosmology and they cannot exist, exclusive from one another

the conversion of energy to matter would not and cannot explain the creation of matter, as energy is, purely a force and is not, in and of itself, any more tangible than a thought, allow me to fully explain myself, in layman's terms:
all energy is a radiation force, be it light, heat, or motion. Energy can be used to REARRANGE matter, but as energy has no physical attribute (volume, particles) it canot form matter.
Matter, on the other hand, has energy STORED within it and that energy can be storedor released and reabsorbed. becasue it cannot be destroyed, it must always be somewhere after its release, but because the universe is finite (all the matter that ever existed is all that will ever exist, because it cannot be created, nor destroyed), it is also a closed system, and all the sub-units are part of this closed system.

the singularity theory of compressed matter need be false! Why? compression must have an OUTSIDE force and if all matter is gathered (or started) in one place, there would be no available energy (outside force) to compress it.
whether all matter expanded (the universe at the 'big bang') at a constant and equal rate or not is irrelevent.
Why?
because giving the expansionof atomic material from a central point in a spherical pattern, the only time that collisions could take place would be at the beginning (or for a VERY short period thereafter)as faster traveling atoms would outpace the slower moving ones and they would never again be caught or contact another atom ever again. Remember that there3 is no outside force or atomic mass outside of the centralizedmass of all that existed, so these particals could never, ever come into contact with anything else, ever.
There is nothing else to slow, or accelerate them either.

AGAIN:
radiation cannot exist, BY DEFINITION, with some THING to radiate
The law of entropy is NOT an invention of Creationists, trying to disprove anything, it is not a creationist construct!

A closed system cannot have sub-sections of the whole that are NOT closed, themselves!
THIS IS WHY ABSOLUTE ZERO IS UNATTAINABLE! everything, in the closed system of the cosmos, affects everything else, however immeasurable (by our limited abilities)!

Answer 1

Questions 1 and 3 have to be answered with "who knows?" at the moment (and probably for the foreseeable future). It is very well established that billions of years ago, the universe was very much smaller and very much hotter than it is now. But we can't do more than speculate on what came before time zero (if there even was a before, which there wasn't if the universe really started at a singularity). People have this misconception that a scientific theory of a historical process should explain everything. This is almost never possible, though. All a theory can do is explain observations, and it always seems that the sufficiently distant past is inaccessible to observation. Even as our ability to observe grows and grows and pushes back the veil further and further, there is always a limit to our knowledge. Such is life. Scientists accept this uncertainty. If you want to insert your vision of God just beyond the last frontier of scientific knowledge, feel free. Lots of people have done it before. And they generally get embarrassed the next time the veil gets pushed out.

Question 2 is easy. The thermodynamic argument against evolution is pure garbage, and you can fairly identify anyone who makes it as a crank who doesn't know the first thing about physics that they didn't get off a creationist website somewhere. The earth is constantly bombarded with ordered energy from the sun. It is constantly radiating unordered heat into the universe. It is a little entropy-making machine. The small amount of order that living things appear to create is completely swamped by the amount of entropy they produce in the form of heat.

Answer 2

1. Re: Thermodynamics
The First Law of Thermodynamics actually states, "Energy may be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed." Part of the result of the Big Bang is that a large amount of energy (that which held the singularity together) was converted to matter.

At any rate, evolutionary biology doesn't care about astrophysics, so that's a question for a different group of eggheads.

2. Entropy only occurs in closed systems. You have to remember that Earth is not a closed system - we exist in the solar system, and thus get a daily dose of energy from the sun, as well as entry of all sorts of neat stellar bits and pieces.
Keep in mind also that living things are not closed systems - they are constantly exchanging materials with the outside world. Think radiation poisoning - if we were closed systems, nobody would ever get radiation poisoning because radiation would never be encountered.
Read more here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html

3. Again, the Big Bang is outside the realm of evolution - and the simple answer to your question is, nobody knows what caused it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, mind you. For a very long time, nobody knew what caused apples to fall to the ground when they were dropped.

As responses to your edits:
1. It's true that logically, biogenesis can be viewed as an extension of cosmology, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Look at all of the dead planets in our solar system: they are all evidence that just because a Universe exists doesn't mean it has life.

2. Energy and matter are interchangable. When hydrogen molecules fuse into helium, for example, some matter is lost in the form of energy (that is, the combined mass of the two ingoing hydrogens is more than the mass of the resultant helium). Energy can be converted to mass, mass can be converted to energy - that is one of the keystones of relativity and quantum mechanics.

3. The singularity theory is not false - your understanding of it is somewhat weak. Simply by existing, every single atom has its own gravitational fields. Black holes are singularities, and they generate massive amounts of gravity. That's how they work, in fact. Imagine if you will, as a thought experiment, that there was a previous universe to ours that was simply gobbled up by a massive black hole - that black hole would continue to operate until it existed as itself and nothing else, with no other atoms or subatomic particles anywhere. Therefore, that black hole could conceivably be a singularity that spawned the next universe.

Gravity is a force that is spawned by an object, not one that is spawned by an object's relationship with another object. Every atom, every object, ever PERSON in the universe generates gravity simply by existing.

4. You are correct, the Universe as a whole is a closed system. However, the Universe is so phenomenally large that it will take billions of years for Heat Death, one of two theorized potential ultimate fates of the Universe, to occur. For those unfamiliar with Heat Death, that is when all matter in the universe will be equally spaced out, total entropy will have been reached, and there will be no possibility for energy exchange (meaning no life processes).

When Heat Death occurs, all life will in fact die off. However, the theorized timeline for Heat Death extends several billion years into the future.

Answer 3

None of your questions have anything to do with evolution. They have to do with the origin of the Universe. Theories of the physical origin of the Universe do not have anything to do with biological evolution. In addition, the Earth is less than a third the age of the Universe and the initial conditions of the Universe do not matter as long as they led to the kind of Universe in which life could appear.

The appearance of life also has nothing to do with evolution, it could have been spontaneous here, planted by an extra -terrestrial visitor in a spacecraft, drifted in on a meteor or been set up by a supernatural being in an unique act. Evolution only gets going when there is a population of organisms.

Q1. The net energy of the Universe has recently been estimated as zero. If this is true, the net mass of the Universe is also zero. So there is no conflict with the first thermo. law. In any case, your statement is not quite correct. Mass is not destroyed to any considerable extent in mechanical or chemical processes. But it interconverts from radiation to mass and back with gay abandon in nuclear and high energy processes.

Q2. The stuff about entropy is a load of codswallop. This is a piece of classic misdirection by creationist liars. It is true that matter cannot self-organise in a closed system, that is, without input of energy. But the Earth, on which biological evolution is an example of self-organisation, is not a closed system. The Sun pours energy onto the Earth at the rate of about a Watt per square meter.

Q3. I am not going to attempt to answer this because I do not have the physics.

Answer 4

I was sooo excited to help your evolution questions. However, your questions have nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is change. Genetics (traits) are passed from parent to offspring. Those with better traits (genes) will survive to reproduce.

So, the population has to have some sort of problem. Usually, not enough food, shelter, etc. (dependent completely upon the species). This will not enable every individual in the population to survive to reproduce. When an individual does not reproduce their specific combination of genetics is not added to the next generation. Also, this can occur when geographical barriers exist but that is also a long winded answer. This should help though in determining what the difference is between physics (the questions you asked) and evolution.

Answer 5

Q1: Where did all existant atomic material come from?
About the origin of the Universe exist various theories, at the moment most scientists accept the Big Bang theory as the start of the Universe.
The Big Bang.
This theory states that the Universe in its current shape is only a phase of a process that started with a gigantic explosion about 15 billion years ago.

In the beginning the Universe was all in one point, all its matter and energy where squished into an infinitely small volume, mathematically expressed a singularity. From this singularity the Universe exploded and by this native explosion not only matter and energy was created, however also space and time.

The theory says that it is not of any use to speak of the period before the Big Bang, there is no 'before' because time (and space) did not exist.

Q2: Since chaos is the end result of everything, how can evolution account for ordered, non-random, events that created functioning eco-systems and life?
"A watch must have required a watchmaker; a car could not have formed itself from parts."
The above statements in italics from creationists are certainly true, but they have nothing to do with the behavior of atoms and molecules. Car parts in a junkyard don’t speed inside the yard at a thousand miles an hour, constantly colliding with each other, fusing together with a similar part (or different ones) so violently that enormous quantities of energy are given out – enough to make them white hot.

Why give a silly illustration like that? Anyone knows that it is not an inherent quality of metal parts to spontaneously join with similar or quite different parts to form complex new arrangements. Yet, this IS precisely the normal behavior of most of the chemical elements that constitute the world and the universe. The value of the second law of thermodynamics is that it quantitatively describes the energetic aspects of the chemical elements and the compounds they form. The chemical potential energy (the enthalpy of formation) that is bound in most of the 20,000,000 known kinds of molecules is less than that in their elements. Thus, energetically , the second law says that the majority of compounds now known could spontaneously form from the corresponding elements. In complete contrast, watches or cars are not lower in thermodynamic energy than the total energy of their individual components. Therefore, the second law says that it is totally inappropriate to compare them with the behavior of chemical compounds and elements.

Incessantly moving at a few hundred to two thousand miles an hour at ordinary temperatures. hydrogen and many other atoms behave in a fashion that is impossible for car parts: Most atoms spontaneously "bond" when they vigorously collide, forming extremely powerful associations in very specific ways. These new arrangements can be molecules so stable that temperatures of thousands of degrees can't tear them apart again. Molecules are not atoms randomly stuffed in a package. When three or more atoms join to form a molecule, they are arranged in precise order, normally unchanging over time, and with a relatively fixed geometric relationship.

Finally, many kinds of molecules can strike other kinds very violently and produce totally new types of molecules – another mode of formation of new complex ordered structures due to the same innate nature of atoms to form strong bonds and spread out energy to the surroundings. Amino acids when simply melted with other amino acids (to make them move more rapidly) form huge new compounds. These are NOT useful or valuable proteins. The process simply illustrates the probability of the existence of complex gigantic substances in nature. Though not proteins, they are "proteinoid" in that they have hundreds to thousands of amino acid units firmly joined in the same kind of bonds that hold proteins together.

Q3: The theory that the universe is expanding from a central point and ALL atomic mass was in a central area, what was the outside force that cause the big bang?
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and concomitantly huge temperatures and pressures, very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, when the universe grew exponentially. After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[17] Temperatures were so high that particle random motions were at relativistic speeds, and particle-antiparticle pairs of all kinds were continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction violated conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and anti-leptons, of the order of 1 part in 1010. This unknown process is called baryogenesis and resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.

Answer 6

Q1: i do not know, it has nothing to do with evolution, evolution deals with how species adapt to their environment.

q2: evolution is partly random, however there are so many randomfactors that the randomness becomes a pattern. a freak storm may destroy crops, eradicate bugs etc. but freak storms happen every off 20 years atleast somewhere on earth. life adapts.

q3: again this has nothing to do with evolution, but with cosmology, since i am not a cosmologist, and scientists themselves are still strugling to explain why the expansion of hte universe is accellerating.

and secondly, newtons law of physics does not take into account chemical or radioactive reactions, which also create energy/heat, thus pressure, and thus force.

Answer 7

Holy crap, the school system did a number on you. This has to be a joke, right? No one would be able to be this misinformed about science and still be able to use a computer. Congrats, you got a lot of people to think this post was real.

To answer every one of your questions: You don't know what you are talking about, therefor I can't answer a flawed questions. Ask a question that isn't flawed and I will answer it. Your questions are literally the same as if I asked you: "If God exists, there is light, which has colors, yet I like green and you like blue, so where did God come from?" That question is probably about as coherent as your questions.

Answer 8

Your Q1 and Q3 have nothing to do specifically with evolution, but are questions of cosmology. The theory of evolution does not address origins of matter or origin of life, but requires that life exist.

Your second question is really one of thermodynamics. In a closed system (one with no input of matter or of energy), the system will spontaneously progress to a more disordered (higher entropy) state. Living systems are NOT closed, because they are continuously exchanging both matter and energy with their surroundings. Because living systems exchange matter and energy with their surroundings, they do not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Answer 9

All these same arguments can be made against creationism and intelligent design theories. Where did God come form? What did he use to create the earth? etc.... Furthermore evolution is about life not the origin of the universe.

the truth is nobody was around when the earth and life where created so there is not knowledgeable authority to settle the argument.

Answer 10

first question: seen it happen in nature, no not directly, i dont htink so. but new species are discovered every say aesong question: there is no definate cutoff point. the transitions are somewhat of a grey area. the mother does not give birth to a new species, but rather a variation of her own. as more variants give birth to even more, the variants that move toward a different characteristic become a new species in whole. as for reproducing with its predecsors, they will all have long since died, as most evolutionary turns take thousands of years or more.