Published on January 3rd, 2013 | by Gary DeMar4
New Robot Proves Evolution is Impossible
There are theories for such things, but no empirical data to prove the theories.
Evolutionists wax eloquently about “nature’s design capabilities,” as if nature has a mind. Nature isn’t a person. When “Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,” as the opening line to the theme song for “The Big Bang Theory” TV show states (see the complete music video below), where was life, thought, mind, logic, rationality, morality? What was directing the organization of atoms into “autotrophs” and “Neanderthals” and everything else?
The first question is not “is the human race just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet?,” as Stephen Hawking asked. The primary question is, Where and how did the “chemical scum” come into existence in the first place and organize itself into complex life forms? Erwin Schrödinger noted the problem in his book What is Life?, published in 1944:
“How can the events in space and time which take place with the spatial boundary of a living organism be accounted for by physics and chemistry? The preliminary answer . . . can be summarized as follows: The obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason for doubting that they can be accounted for by those sciences.”
Dr. Schrödinger didn’t know then, and physicists and chemists don’t know now.
Andy Pross writes that the passage of more than 65 years and “enormous advances in molecular biology, illuminated by a long list of Nobel prizes, we continue to struggle with Schrödinger’s simple and direct question.”
Chemists, biologists, and physicists know that “living things are made up of the same ‘dead molecules as non-living ones, but somehow the manner in which those molecules interact in a holistic ensemble results in something special—us, and every other living thing on this planet.”
This is what is known. What’s not known, and Pross and other evolutionists admit, is how it call came to be.
Even so, contrary to all “common sense,” the “basic laws of physics,” and the fact that “highly organized entities don’t spontaneously come about,” Pross and other evolutionists have no other choice but to deny common sense and the basic laws of physics in order to maintain that the cosmos and life in it arose spontaneously.
They need to take a lesson from the development of Roboy said to be “one of the most advanced humanoid robots.” Did it arise spontaneously? From conception and design to manufacture and assembly, building Roboy has taken “15 project partners and over 40 engineers and scientists.” Why don’t we see examples of early models of Roboy buried in the fossil record? Why no Transformers?
Roboy is certainly a marvel of engineering, but it cannot compare to a human, and if it hadn’t been for humans, there wouldn’t be a Roboy.
Tim Berra, professor of zoology at Ohio State University, would claim that the evolution of the robot is similar to biological evolution. Instead of a robot, he appeals to the evolution of the Corvette:
“Everything evolves, in the sense of ‘descent with modification,’ whether it be government policy, religion, sports cars, or organisms. The revolutionary fiberglass Corvette evolved from more mundane automotive ancestors in 1953. Other high points in the Corvette’s evolutionary refinement included the 1962 model, in which the original 102-inch was shortened to 98 inches and the new closed-coupe Stingray model was introduced; the 1968 model, the forerunner of today’s Corvette morphology, which emerged with removable roof panels; and the 1978 silver anniversary model, with fastback styling. Today’s version continues the stepwise refinements that have been accumulating since 1953. The point is that the Corvette evolved through a selection process acting on variations that resulted in a series of transitional forms and an endpoint rather distinct from the starting point. A similar process shapes the evolution of organisms.”
Berra’s definition of automotive evolution is in no way similar to non-directed biological evolution whereby life arose from non-life and changes within a species resulted in gradual changes so that a new species is said to have evolved. The first Corvette was designed by someone as was each new model thereafter. The same is true for everything — from the thumb tack to the space shuttle.
Berra is equivocating on the definition of ‘evolution.’ He’s using the term in only one way when it actually has a number of definitions. Change within a species is not evolution in the Darwinian sense. There is no evidence that small changes over millions of years have resulted in the development of new species. The change is automobile designs can in no way be compared to a “Blind Watchmaker” view of evolution. In fact, the “design with modification” fits the Intelligent Design paradigm. In addition, who or what is doing the “selecting”?
The more evolutionists try to explain their theory, the less convincing it becomes.
- Andy Pross, What is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2012. [↩]
- Tim Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999), 118–119. Berra is equivocating in his use of ‘evolution.’ [↩]