The Unexplained


I thought these were some interesting thoughts.


Evolution has no explanation for the following:

1.  The problem of order – From the laws of thermodynamics to the information content of DNA, we see order everywhere.  How did this arise from pure random chance?

2.  The problem of light – What is light and energy?  We give them names, but we really don’t know what they are or why they exist.

3.  The problem of life – It is absolutely statistically impossible that life could arise from random chemical reactions.

4.  The problem of conscious thought – Why are humans self-aware?  Do other creatures ask, “Where did I come from?  Why am I here?  What is the purpose of life?”

5.  The problem of reproduction – How and why would a single-sex organism turn into two different sexes?

6.  The problem of decay – All of life is dying.  The entire universe is running down.  Therefore, it must have been more perfect in the past.  Evolution ignores this problem, because it cannot explain it.

~Bruce Malone
Former research leader for Dow Chemical Co.
quoted in the book A Closer Look at the Evidence


The fifth item has always been especially convincing to me.  Since it’s quite obvious that an organism which contains everything necessary to reproduce within itself has a huge advantage over one that must search out a mate, why in the world would so many things have evolved to have two sexes?  According to the philosophy of “survival of the fittest,” asexual reproduction should far outweigh any other type.

And besides that, why would it stop there?  If one kind of critter evolved to need two to reproduce, why wouldn’t some things need three different sexes, and others four or more?  Yes, that would get really complicated, but is it any more farfetched?  How can anyone believe that an asexual organism somehow separated its reproductive genes into two sexes, but at the same time a mechanism evolved where they could be joined again when the time was right for babies?  And that the same thing happened in organism after organism, both plants and animals?  It’s ludicrous beyond words.

But I guess it’s no more ludicrous than #3.  Or #1.  No one would have ever believed those things either if they had simply looked at the facts without any presuppositions.


This is a fascinating book, btw.  I highly recommend it.  It’s arranged like a devotional, with just a short bit for each day.  They’ve been gleaned from a lot of different sources in biology, astronomy, archaeology, anatomy, etc.  We have learned some truly amazing things through this book and are really loving it! 




About dayuntoday

I'm a wonderer. I spend a lot of time mulling, pondering, and cogitating. This is just a place to park some of those thoughts.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Unexplained

  1. QuantumStorm says:

    1. Evolution doesn’t state things happen by “pure random chance”; with thermodynamics, you need to clarify. If you are talking about order from chaos, remember that the Earth is an open system so localized decreases in entropy are viable (eg: That’s how engines, fridges, freezers, etc all work – they bring order from chaos). 2. Evolution deals with biology, not particle physics. We DO know what light is – it’s EM radiation that has a wavelength which falls between 380-780 nm. As for energy, not only are we aware of what it is (a quality that describes an object with regards to its state) but we are aware of, and able to harness, multiple forms of it.3. As with point 1, the claim that life happened from pure “random chance” is not attributed to a scientific viewpoint. Furthermore, evolution doesn’t deal with the formation of life – abiogenesis does. If you want to play the pure statistics game, though, here’s an analogy:Suppose if I dropped a bowling ball from the roof of a building onto the ground. STATISTICALLY speaking, just based on pure chance alone, the probability that the bowling ball will fall DOWNWARDS is near zero, because there are an infinite number of directions a bowling ball can take in 3-d space (up, rightwards, leftwards, 23 degrees off the horizontal facing north, etc). However, when I let that bowling ball go, it always falls to the ground. Why? Because the bowling ball’s trajectory is not governed by chance or statistics, but by the force of gravity. In effect, gravity hedges the bet.Likewise, with the formation of early life, it is not so much governed by random chance or statistical hoopla as it is governed by chemistry and particle physics, both of which exist to predict and explain the order behind what appears, to the untrained eye, as chaos.4. Evolution deals with explaining the mechanism behind biodiversity, not the formation of sentience/sapience – asking evolution to deal with that is comparing apples to oranges. It has no explanation for the development of sentience/sapience any more than physics or chemistry does.5. Not all organisms need two sexes to reproduce – anyone with minimal exposure to elementary-school level biology would point out how single-celled organisms reproduce asexually (in a process called mitosis). Furthermore, there are plenty of natural examples of bacterial organisms that reproduce in a manner roughly analogous to sexual reproduction (known as bacterial conjugation). 6. Again, the problem with this assessment of thermodynamics is that by this argument, we should not have any of the technology present today. Jet engines, heat exchange pumps, computers, etc, all take advantage of the fundamental notions regarding entropy in an open system and how it is perfectly feasible for a system to experience localized decreases in entropy (where dS < 0) as long as the NET of the entire system is an increase. If the system is an isolated one, this is necessary to avoid violation of the laws of thermodynamics – in an open and even in closed systems, the laws are still conserved even if there is an increase in net order because the system is not cut off from the universe entirely (as an isolated system would be). Your understanding of the survival of the fittest notion fails to take into account why sexual reproduction evolved in the first place. Just as one example of an advantage is the ability to foster increased occurrences of favorable alleles in a population; because sexual reproduction requires two different genomes, the chances of a favorable trait being passed on are much higher because more individuals are involved, with larger rates of variation; in contrast, asexual reproduction relies upon clonal interference to increase its chances of passing on favorable traits, which is a longer and more intensive process. Your other arguments regarding the sexes are simple arguments from incredulity (i.e., it sounds ridiculous therefore it is false), which are just variants of arguments from ignorance. Just because something sounds ridiculous to you does not mean it is true or false.

  2. homefire says:

    You’re new here, aren’t you?  Thanks for stopping by.  Interesting thoughts.  But aren’t local decreases in entropy only known to happen in the presence of living organisms?>chemistry and particle physics, both of which exist to predict and explain the order behind what appears, to the untrained eye, as chaos Actually, very little in our world appears chaotic at all.  Seems to me that everything is quite orderly.., which is what makes the “predicting” part possible.And just as an aside, what is it that causes gravity?  Another unexplained thing.

  3. I’m not always very nice.  Whoever said that evolution was not a very clever theory?  Many in this world and on Xanga are “mentally keen, intelligent and quick-witted” to a fault.  The archangel who led the first revolt is second to none in his cleverness except the One he revolted against.  The faith of the evolutionist convinces him/her that neither exist.

  4. QuantumStorm says:

    @homefire – I think I’m new on your site, but I’ve been on Xanga for quite some time. //But aren’t local decreases in entropy only known to happen in the presence of living organisms?//No. Entropy is a measure of disorder; specifically, it’s a measure of uncertainty in the position of particles in a given system. From a more fundamental standpoint, entropy is a measure of the probability of states in a system. The higher the number of possible states, the more uncertain the system becomes in terms of measuring the positions of its constituent particles, and the higher the entropy. Entropy is related to the temperature of a system; temperature itself is nothing more than the relative measurement of motion of atoms/particles within a given volume. Higher temperatures indicate higher entropic states given that at higher temperatures, the motion of the atoms becomes more pronounced and less predictable, which is effectively what defines levels of entropy. The third law of thermodynamics is a very elegant description of this phenomena. It effectively states that as a system’s temperature approaches the absolute zero point (a temperature of 0 Kelvin or -273.15 degrees C), its entropy also approaches a minimum (not necessarily zero); again, this is due to the motion of atoms, which dictate the level of entropy as well as the temperature of the system. Often the third law is illustrated with a perfect crystal at absolute zero, which is, of course, a mathematically ideal situation (in which case the minimum entropy IS zero). As far as localized decreases in entropy – they can occur in ANY system, living or otherwise, depending on the conditions presented. In an isolated system, where dm = 0 and dQ = 0, localized entropic decreases can occur as long as the NET change of the entire system is an increase. With open/closed systems, localized entropic decreases can occur, even if the system as a whole experiences a move towards order – that is, a net decrease in entropy. This is because open and closed systems, unlike isolated systems, experience some form of energy or mass transfer (For a closed system, it’s energy only, and for an open system, it can be both energy and mass). This is the fundamental principle behind virtually every engine or mechanical object in use today, whether it is a fridge or a car engine, nuclear power plant, etc. From a natural standpoint, localized decreases in entropy occur all the time – where do you think snow comes from?  If we were to take the entire Earth as a system, then localized decreases can occur and in fact, DO occur; furthermore, the Earth is an open system. We have mass transfer (meteorites, atmospheric gases sloughing off into space, etc) and energy transfer (sunlight, cosmic radiation, gravitational forces exerted by the Moon, etc), so it’s perfectly within the laws of thermodynamics if localized and even system-wide decreases in entropy (a.k.a. increases in order) occur. As far as your comments on nature being fairly predictable – have you, by chance, heard of quantum mechanics? Regarding the cause of gravity; the Standard Model’s postulations on gravity suggest that a massless particle known as the graviton may be responsible for transmitting the gravity force, which fits within our current understandings of quantum field theory. I say “postulation” because it has not been observed in nature yet; it’s the last of the messengers of the four fundamental forces that has yet to be observed (the other three forces being the electromagnetic force via photons, strong nuclear force via gluons, and weak nuclear force via W and Z gauge bosons). Arguably the best explanation for gravity’s difficulty in direct observation may come from string theory, but there’s still much to be uncovered. Of course, just because it’s another “unexplained thing” doesn’t mean we just give up and stop advancing and applying our knowledge of physics.

  5. I sure hope I’m not a “fool rushing in where angels fear to tread”, but hey, it’s the internet, so why not?My most interesting class in high school was biology, not because I was that intelligent, but because I was enthralled by what my teacher taught us throughly, the “theory of evolution”.  I used to think that my parents were a little lacking in intelligence, because I could not convince them that evolution was the method that God used to create what we know.  I now realize that evolution & God are a little like money and God, you can’t serve both.  God won hands down.  I once read in one of Henry Morris’s books of the stages that he went through from evolution to faith in God, and they mirrored mine exactly.  I loved to listen to my biology teacher in his many “discussions”, which could be more accurately described as “monologues”.  Oh, he was merely an actor in a drama all right.  The philosophy he so interestingly presented was formed eons ago in the mind of Lucifer.  I understand that incorrigible liars actually can believe the lies they tell.  I believe that Lucifer rebelled against the revelation that he was a created being.  Mankind does no less.  I want to spend eternity with Jesus, not Darwin.

  6. homefire says:

    @THE_LORDS_FREEMAN – “I believe that Lucifer rebelled against the revelation that he was a created being.  Mankind does no less.”  ~~~ beautifully stated! 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s