Natural species are essentially stable since their origin

 

The data of observation from molecular genetics, embryology, anatomy, paleontology and population genetics do not deliver a proof for an evolutionary process. On the other hand, science demonstrates the originality of species: Within the framework of their limited natural variability, species have always been the same since their origin. They are not connected by common descent. New constructions and functions did not and can not evolve, as proven by the most basic natural law, the absence of evolving organs and a logical analysis.

 

 

Sir Ernst Chain, Nobel Prize for biochemistry, on the hypothesis of biological evolution:  

 

 "... an hypothesis without evidence and against the facts."  

 

 

(Sir Ernst Chain, Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society 1970, p. 25)

 

 

 

Lecture slides
Scientific assessment of evolutionary theory

 

  

The slides can be used for presentation purposes if those graphics which have got a source information are shown with the source information. A printed publication or publication on a website etc. needs permission by the author of the graphics, except for those from commons.wikimedia.org.  

 

 

 

Spring Conference 2012 of the German Physical Society in Berlin 

 

 

Abstract of talk given on  27 March 2012: 

 

 

Thermodynamics excludes a physical origin of life in open systems  

 

                     — Thomas Seiler — Stuttgart

 

Entropy determines that all processes in nature proceed from less probable distributions to more probable ones. An objection to this premise is that the constraints of thermodynamics are not valid for open systems - in which biological structures exist. However, the limits of open systems can be illustrated by the example of machines that reduce entropy such as refrigerators. They transfer heat from a cold volume to a warm volume. This highly improbable phenomenon can only happen because a complex cooling mechanism exists already. A further example of order increasing in open systems is the formation of crystals, e.g. snow-flakes. When heat is removed, a phase-transition leads to the appearance of macroscopic regularity which reflects a molecular regularity. The emergence of life does not belong to such processes since these are the physical ways in which a hidden pre-existing order is made visible. No really new order or information is generated in open systems. Either the information content was already present in a complex machine or it already existed in the symmetry of the underlying molecules or in the feedback mechanism of a dissipative structure. On the other hand, there is no physical arrangement containing the information needed to build up life from non-life or complex creatures from simpler creatures. Their physical emergence is excluded by the Second Law of Thermodynamics because they do not belong to those pre-programmed structures which open systems can form.

 

Part: AGPhil, Type: Vortrag; Talk, Topic: Arbeitsgruppe Philosophie der Physik; Working Group on Philosophy of Physics 

 

 

Conference Contribution
Presentation given at the German Physical Society in Berlin in 2012. It demonstrates the impossibility of evolution.

 

The slides can be used for presentation purposes if those graphics which have got a source information are shown with the source information. A printed publication or publication on a website etc. needs permission by the author of the graphics, except for those from commons.wikimedia.org.

 

 

 

Booklet on stability of organic constructions and functions

 

A brief summary of key arguments against the proposed evidence of evolution and for the originality of species. 

 

 Available here.  

 

 

 

 

 

One proof against the theory of evolution

 

A logical contradiction in evolutionary theory arises from the existence of  our minds. Mutation and selection would if it were possible  only produce constructions and functions which are beneficial for survival in the material world. Any useless complex structure would quickly be removed by natural selection.


One such “organ”— although not material — is a conscious mind. As all reactions of a body which are controlled by a mind could also be performed by a  mechanical robot with an unfeeling computer program, the existence of a mind does not deliver any advantage in the struggle for survival. A robot could, for example, react in the same beneficial way when its hand touches a hot surface as a human does. It could also scream “Ow!” as a human does but there is no need to feel consciously pain in order to protect the body and thus to be fit for survival. Therefore, the existence of a conscious mind cannot be the result of an evolutionary process.


Furthermore, all our organs which have to be controlled by us consciously, like hands, feet or eyes, cannot function properly without the purposeful action of our mind. Therefore, since evolution cannot produce a conscious mind it cannot produce such
organs. They would not be beneficial without a conscious mind. It follows that both the evolution of our mind as of our body is excluded by the fundamental principles of evolutionary theory and the concomittant existence of consciousness.