Entropy, Evolution or De-Evolution

 

Does the law of entropy (systems are breaking down; matter and energy are dissipating) rule against macroevolution? The evolutionist persistently argues that this is not the case:

·       Evolutionary biology in no way runs counter to [the 2^nd Law of] thermodynamics. The earth is not a closed system, and it received a large amount of energy from the sun.

There is some truth to this. In limited ways, energy is transferred to life sources, which collect it. For example, plants can capture the sun rays and produce energy from them, although, on a grander scale, energy is dissipating.

However, this is not where the law of entropy spells death to the theory of macroevolution, which has hypothesized the large changes. One indication of the law of entropy is found in the deterioration of the genetic codes. Instead, of finding evolutionary development (an improvement in the genome and growth in complexity), we are finding the very opposite – de-evolution:

·       Modern science has difficulty explaining why cells stop making perfect copies. This is because modern science assumes evolution to be a fact which requires a belief that we are increasing in complexity – evolving upwards. Therefore, cell reproduction should be getting better with time, not worse. Furthermore, if humans have been around for 1 million years (or more), then there have been over 20,000 generations of humans in existence. It is documented that every generation has between 100 and 1000 mistakes added to the DNA code. [John C. Stanford, “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome,” Third Ed. 2008, 45-88]

Breakdown of the species rather than development is what is found, as even evolutionists note:

·       Lynn Margulis, member of the National Academy of Sciences: "new mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.” She further explained in a 2011 interview:

•       Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.

Is evolution a fact, as some claim? Evidently, not:

·       “There is no theoretical reason that would permit us to expect that evolutionary lines would increase in complexity with time; there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.” (John Maynard Smith, E. Szathmary—quoted from John Lennox’s book, “God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God,” 107) (All the following quotations are taken from this masterful book!)

In short, there is no evidence for the increase of useful genetic information over time:

·       “In the whole experimentally accessible domain of microevolution (including research in artificial breeding and in species formation), all variations have certainly remained within the confines of basic types [species, more or less].” (Siegfried Scherer)

·       Cell biologist E.J. Ambrose of the University of London argued that it is unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown in the organism. He then points out that only one in 1,000 mutations is non-deleterious, so that the chance of five non-deleterious mutations occurring is 1 in a million billion replications.

This means that every organism will probably die before it adds a new organ! Even the in laboratory, where mutations can be induced, we have seen no net gain in genetic information:

·       In his book, Grasse observed that fruit flies remain fruit flies in spite of thousands of generations that have been bred and all the mutations that have been induced in them…More recent work on the E. coli bacterium backs this up. In this research no real innovative changes were observed through 25,000 generations of E. coli bacterium. (Lennox, 108)

Consequently, Bruce Malone concludes:

·       “No experiment has ever shown how useful functioning information can be added to the DNA molecule by random changes.”

Even worse for the evolutionist, de-evolution is what has been observed in conformity with entropy. Malone cites the growing accumulation of genetic defects within the human genome:

·       “This [collection of defects] is exactly what is happening to the human genome at an alarming rate. Thousands of tiny mistakes are building up with each generation.”

De-evolution is observed in many others ways. Instead of star creation, we have only observed star destruction:

·       “We have never seen a star born, but we have seen hundreds die.” (Kleiss)

Across the board, 98% of all species have disappeared:

·       “One-third of all known species [of birds] on the [Hawaiian] islands have become extinct within the last 1,500 years. Yet no new species of Hawaiian birds have developed over the same period…This evidence implies that the millions of different life forms on Earth could not have come from evolution, because creatures become extinct far faster than they could possibly evolve into new types.” (Kleiss)

De-evolution is the rule. It also confirms the Biblical account. God had made everything “very good” and without death. We have been degrading and dying ever since.