Science vs. Modernism on Evolution
“A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question....”
— Charles Darwin, Introduction, The Origin of Species
A SCIENTIFIC CRITIQUE OF EVOLUTION
A conference will be held on November 3, 2008, in La Sapienza University’s Pathology Amphitheatre at the Umberto Policlinico in Rome to coincide with that of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) from October 31 to November 3. Both discuss the theory of evolution in the light of the up-coming 2009 Darwinian year celebrations.
Whereas the Pontifical Academy discusses data proposed for evolution, scientists at the Sapienza conference will present the scientific facts against the theory. The participants claim to represent thousands of qualified scientists who disagree with the popular view of evolution but whose voices are damped down by the evolutionist majority.
The scientists taking part who oppose evolution had originally sought admittance to the PAS conference. They did so following the appeal by Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, in Truth and Tolerance, that the arguments for and against evolution should be heard with objectivity. He wrote, “This dispute has therefore to be approached objectively and with a willingness to listen, by both sides—something that has hitherto been undertaken only to a limited extent.” Unfortunately, the PAS ignored the scientists’ request. Consequently, and in order that the case against evolution be heard, the same scientists decided to hold their own conference. It should be emphasised that these scientists are not “creationists” and would be offended to be considered as such.
The arguments against evolution are rarely heard because academic institutions such as the PAS prefer to restrict their presentations to data that, in their view, support the theory. As a result the case against the theory is largely unknown to the public. For instance, the highly embarrassing fact that recent laboratory experiments have shown that stratified sedimentary rocks, containing the fossils alleged to prove evolution, formed very quickly. The experiments were conducted by one of the speakers at the conference, sedimentologist Guy Berthault, and published by the Russian Academy of Sciences. A paleohydraulic analysis in the field accompanying these experiments showed that major rock formations deposited not in millions of years but in 0.01% of the time attributed to them by the geological time-scale.
The effect of this conference on the global scientific community may well be comparable to the effect of the current financial crisis on the global economy: Nothing will ever be the same!
The disciplines represented at the conference are:
Sedimentology – Guy Berthault, a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique, France, a member of the French Geological Society and the Association of Sedimentologists. His experiments have been published by the French Academy of Sciences, the Journal of the Geological Society of France, and the Russian Academy of Sciences journal Lithology and Mineral Resources.
Biology – Pierre Rabischong, previous dean of the Montpelier Medical University and an expert in computer-aided surgery.
Genetics – Maciej Giertych, a population geneticist who holds an M.A. in forestry from Oxford University in England, a Ph. D. in tree physiology from Toronto University, Canada, and a D.Sc. in genetics from the Agricultural Academy in Poznan, Poland.
Geophysics - Josef Holzschuh, a geophysicist with a Ph.D. from the University of Sydney in Australia. He works in the field of seismic processing.
Radiometric Dating - Jean de Pontcharra, head of the Research Group, CEA-LETI (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Laboratoire d'Electronique et de Technologie de l'Informatique). He has a doctorate in solid state physics from the University of Grenoble, France.
Abstracts of the speakers’ presentations are attached. For further information in Europe, please contact, Peter Wilders, firstname.lastname@example.org In North America, please contact H. M. Owen email@example.com
Visit the conference website at http://sites.google.com/site/scientificcritiqueofevolution/Home
A Scientific Critique of Evolution
November 3, 2008, 9:30 - 17:00
Aula di Patologia Generale A
viale Regina Elena 324
(Policlinico Umberto I)
Dominique Tassot, Introduction
Guy Berthault, Experiments in Stratification do not support the Theory of Evolution
Josef Holzschuh, The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution
Pierre Rabischong, The Concept of Evolution in Biology
Jean de Pontcharra, Are Radio-dating Methods reliable?
Maciej Giertych, Impact of Research on Race Formation and Mutations on the Theory of Evolution
Dr. Dominique Tassot, a graduate of the Ecole des Mines (ParisTech), Ph.D. in Philosophy, is President of the Centre d’Études et de Prospective sur la Science.
Mr. Guy Berthault is a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique, France, a member of the French Geological Society and the Association of Sedimentologists. His experiments have been published by the French Academy of Sciences, the Journal of the Geological Society of France, and the Russian Academy of Sciences journal “Lithology and Mineral Resources.”
Dr. Josef Holzschuh has a Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of Sydney. He works in the field of seismic processing.
Pr. Pierre Rabischong is the previous Dean of the Faculty of Medicine in Montpellier and an expert in computer-aided surgery.
Pr. Maciej Giertych holds an M.A. in forestry from Oxford University in England and a Ph. D. in tree physiology from Toronto University, Canada, and a D.Sc. in genetics from the Agricultural Academy in Poznan, Poland. A population geneticist, Dr. Giertych has published more than 200 scientific papers and several books, primarily in the field of population genetics of forest trees.
Dr. Jean de Pontcharra heads the research group of the CEA-LETI (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Laboratoire d'Electronique et de Technologie de l'Informatique). He has a doctorate in solid state physics from the University of Grenoble, France.
Experiments in Stratification Do Not Support the Theory of Evolution
Guy Berthault, Meulan, France
The theory of evolution formulated by Darwin claims the fossil record shows that organisms have transformed into different species over the long periods of time expressed in the geological time-scale. This scale, however, is based upon the interpretations of stratified sedimentary rock formations by naturalist Nicolas Stenon published in his book in 1667. He wrote “superposed strata are ancient sedimentary layers” which statement defines of the principle of superposition. It was only relatively recently that the sedimentation process could be observed and Stenon’s interpretations tested. As they had not been tested before, I decided to do so.
Science being founded upon facts, I first examined the reports of deep-sea drilling projects and Hjulström’s research on fluviatile sediments. This was followed by my fundamental experiments laboratory experiments in stratification. The latter showed that laminae or thin strata result from segregation of particles in dry conditions, a vacuum or still water. Two reports were published in 1986 and 1988 by the French Academy of Sciences.
In 1991, I supervised experiments to obtain larger strata under the direction of Pierre Julien, Professor of hydrology and sedimentology at the University of Colorado (USA). These demonstrated that a turbulent current creates strata prograding together laterally and vertically as a result of variations in current velocity. A report was published in 1993 by the Geological Society of France. The experiments showed that neither the lamination nor the stratification produced could be explained by the principle of superposition. The experimental data revealed by this research has yet to be incorporated into present-day geology and sedimentology. A similar situation arose in sequence stratigraphy developed by Golovkinsky in 1868 and Walther in 1894 providing data that was not taken into account in geology until eventually adopted by the Exxon Group in 1977. It showed that systems tracts consisting of superposed strata are isochronous, i.e. the strata formed simultaneously as is demonstrated by our experiments in Colorado.
Nicolas Stenon and his successors having overlooked the current as an agent of sedimentation, it was necessary to conduct experiments in the laboratory and paleohydraulic analyses on the terrain of existing stratified sedimentary rocks to demonstrate the omission. The latter analyses were performed to relate sedimentary particles according to their size with current velocity at the successive stages of erosion, transport and deposition. The relationship applies to the lithology of sequences from conglomerates to small particles. An example of paleohydraulic analysis is given n my 2002 publication Analysis of the Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data in the journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
A team of Russian sedimentologists directed by Alexander Lalomov (Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Ore Deposits) applied paleohydraulic analyses to geological formations in Russia (examples are the Crimean Peninsular and the North-West Russian Platform). In the case of the Platform it is shown that the time taken for the sediments to deposit would have been no more that 0.01% of that ascribed to them by the geological time-scale. This demonstrated the lesson taught by geology historian Gabriel Gohau that “time is measured by the time taken for sediments to deposit, a fact upon which everybody is more or less agreed, and not by orogenesis of biological revolutions.” Evolution cannot, therefore, occur in such a short time.
Guy Berthault is a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique, France, a
member of the French Geological Society and the Association of
Sedimentologists. His experiments have been published by the
French Academy of Sciences, the Journal of the Geological Society of
France, and the Russian Academy of Sciences journal “Lithology and
Mineral Resources.” His research papers can be examined at www.sedimentology.fr
The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution
Dr Josef Holzschuh, Canberra, Australia
science of thermodynamics is a branch of physics concerned with the
study of the movement of heat, or energy. The first law of
thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy content of a
closed system is constant. A closed system is a system that
exchanges no energy with the outside world, giving off none and
taking up none. The second law of thermodynamics applies to
all forms of energy, not just heat, and states that entropy, in a
closed system, will always increase with time.
In terms of the Universe the first law states the total energy of the universe is constant. The second law states that the total entropy of the universe is continually increasing. Entropy can be interpreted as a measure of the evenness with which energy is distributed, and this is most even when it is distributed as random motion among molecules. The increasing in evenness, or entropy, with which energy is spread out, can be interpreted as increasing “disorder.” Order is regarded as separating things into categories, e.g. alphabetical order in a phone book. To spread things out with perfect evenness is to disregard all differentiations; a particular category of objects is evenly spread out among all the other categories, and that is maximum disorder. In general, all spontaneous processes seem to bring about an increase in disorder. Unless a special effort is made to reverse the order of things all things tend to disarray, e.g. neat rooms will tend to become messed up (Asimov I, 1966).
Scientists who subscribe to the evolutionary hypothesis suggest that the Earth is not a closed system so the second law of thermodynamics cannot be used to rule out the evolution of life on Earth. They suggest that the Earth may be regarded as part of the solar system, and that the solar system may be understood to be the closed system. The energy from the Sun is to provide the energy for a “long and local build up of order” to take place on the Earth (Gould, S. J, 1997).
laws of thermodynamics suggest that energy is distributed, hot
objects will lose their heat and heat up cooler things around it,
e.g. a cup of coffee cooling on a desk. In physics, equilibrium is
the condition where energy is distributed into its most probable
form throughout the available space. The tendency to equilibrium is
in contrast to speculative scenarios of “long and local build up
of order,” even if the Sun is providing energy for the Earth. Even
with billions or trillions of years, and trillions of solar systems,
although there may be occasions of limited “long and local build
up of order,” there is no observational or experimental evidence
that this process can result in any complex multidimensional system,
e.g. a living cell, tending continually away from equilibrium.
within any system can include gravity, atomic and molecular forces,
pressure, voltage, to name a few. Entropy will result in all things
tending toward equilibrium, or their lowest energy states. Material
objects will move towards gravitational attraction, atomic bonding
forces will move molecules into simple structures with more stable
arrangements, chemical reactions will take place, pressure will be
evenly distributed etc. All things will tend toward their lowest
energy state and energy will be distributed. Highly ordered
structures occur in nature, such as the order found in snow flake,
salts with precise crystalline symmetry, highly ordered crystals of
ice, or a vortex in thunderstorms, i.e. a tornado. A tornado is a
case of a highly unstable system moving very quickly to a more
stable low energy system, with an outcome of much destruction and
disorder. Some scientists who subscribe to the evolutionary
hypothesis suggest that these phenomena are evidence of order
evolving naturally in a system, proving the possibility of the
formation of living organisms. The error with that assertion is that
the order found in living organisms is due to their DNA coding. The
formation of complex molecules such as protein and DNA, and the
further growth due to DNA are all high energy processes.
The second law of thermodynamics indicates that energy tending towards concentrated high energy processes such as the formation of DNA is not possible, but that all things tending towards their lowest state levels, e.g. crystals, is expected. To confuse the natural low energy state of ordered molecules with high energy formation of complex biological molecules is a common and unacceptable error. In reality, the Second Law poses an insurmountable obstacle to all evolutionary explanations for the origin of life and of living things.
Dr. Josef Holzschuh has a Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of Sydney. He works in the field of seismic processing.
THE CONCEPT OF EVOLUTION IN BIOLOGY
Professor Pierre Rabischong, M.D., Montpellier, France
The evolutionary hypothesis supposes that the different kinds of organisms appear progressively on earth through natural processes. This hypothesis holds that all the species we have identified and classified are derived from a common ancestor. By mutation and natural selection every species generates the next one over a very long period of time, thus producing the filiations of species. However, a biologist must normally observe in nature reproducible facts and develop some laboratory demonstrations to try to explain them. Only then does he define a theory which remains an hypothesis unless and until it can be sufficiently confirmed so as to become a law. The evolutionary hypothesis has failed to achieve this confirmation. We expect to show using scientific arguments that the three million species identified until now cannot have arisen through random natural processes. We shall develop the following points:
1. For those familiar with the details of biological organisation, it seems obvious that every organ and function is always successful (in normal conditions) in the sense that it represents an exact original answer to a complex technical problem so as to properly achieve a function integrated into a whole representing a bio-programme. A few examples from animals and man will be presented.
2. The filiations among species were never demonstrated in laboratory experimentations—particularly for drosophila or bacteria, which remain identical even when subjected to every possible experimentally-induced mutation. A historical series of living species does not necessarily signify natural filiations. A species, as defined by Ernest Mayr as a “reproductive community” is isolated by a genetic barrier which is the only intelligent way to avoid chaos in nature. This also accords with the fact that man—the only animal who understands biology—appears on earth last of all. Moreover, in animals, hybrids are commonly sterile.
3. Mutations must be considered non predictable and non programmable mistakes during the complex replication process of the genetic material. Everything is provided in genomes to repair such mistakes in real time, but sometime mutations can occur and generate malformations—fortunately this happens relatively infrequently. Mutations are not necessary to explain biodiversity. The sexual reproduction that links male and female germinative cells within a particular species can easily explain it. It seems desirable to abandon the terms micro and macroevolution, as they both refer to the same debatable process of bio-diversification through mutation.
4. Embryonic growth and biological functions are under the control of very precise and rigorous principles which exclude the fuzzy self-organisation model, which can be applied only to simpler structures.
5. Natural scientists must not actively participate in the faith/science religious debate, but they have to honestly accept the fact that the theory of evolution has not been scientifically proven.
Prof. Pierre Rabischong is the previous Doyen of the Faculty of Medicine in Montpellier and an expert in computer-aided surgery.
Are Radio-dating Methods Reliable?
Jean de Pontcharra, Grenoble, France
Methods using radioactive decay effects are supposed to confirm stratigraphic chronologies and to improve our knowledge of the age of the Earth. In fact, the reality is much more complicated. Fundamental issues must be discussed. For example, what is the importance of the assumptions made for initial conditions in the final result? Is the experimental method applicable to events in the past? And, if the answer is yes, with what precautions?
Reviewing the history of radiodating methods shows the oversimplified assumptions made at the beginning of the XXth century. The extreme simplicity of nuclear models, the lack of knowledge of radioactive decay series, the ignorance of isotopes, the “closed system” hypothesis, but above all, the choice of initial conditions far from realistic, gave rise to contradictory results. We will show that, despite huge improvements in measurement techniques, these weaknesses from the beginning were never corrected. Results discordant with the geological time-scale are systematically discarded. Worst of all, no forum is provided in which scientists can formulate objections to the validity of the initial hypothesis.
Based on the radioactive decay series initiated by uranium 238, we analyze the consequences of different initial conditions on the age of metamorphic rocks.
Through some examples, we discuss the validity of the “closed system” concept (no exchange between the rock crystals and the environment), in particular for the potassium/argon method applied to volcanic rocks undergoing hydrothermal conditions, far from standard conditions (supercritical state at deep depths) and never included in models of crystallization. The crystallization occurring in liquid or viscous magma traps gases and crystal outgassing during eruption is not total. Argon 40 in excess is demonstrated in magmatic rocks from recent volcanic eruptions, like Mt St Helens (USA) and Mt Ngauruhoe (New Zealand). The quantity of argon 40 trapped depends on hydrothermal conditions during solidification and on structure of the crystal lattice. These results explain the systematic and erratic ages obtained from material collected at recent eruption sites.
The need of a free, open and wide debate on such subjects, linked with systematic experiments, is vital for the credibility of modern scientists involved in this research field.
Dr. Jean de Pontcharra is the Research Group Head, CEA-LETI (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Laboratoire d'Electronique et de Technologie de l'Informatique). He has a doctorate in solid state physics from the University of Grenoble, France.
Impact of Race Formation and Mutations on the Theory of Evolution
Maciej Giertych, Kornik, Poland
Throughout Europe evolution is taught in schools as a biological fact. The main evidence for this presented in school textbooks is based on the assertion that formation of races is an example of a small step in evolution. This is profoundly wrong. Races form as a consequence of genetic drift, selection and isolation. Genetic drift results from the accidental loss of some genetic variation in small populations due to inbreeding. Selection depends on the elimination from a population of all forms not adapted to the particular environment. With this elimination also some gene variants (alleles) get lost. For natural races to be identifiable they have to remain isolated from the main body of the population. The same is true in breeding, where the breeder reproduces the race formation procedure only applying selection pressures of his own choice. Macroevolution requires increase of genetic variants, thus race formation which depends on their reduction is a process in the opposite direction, comparable to extinctions.
Positive mutations, as a mechanism leading to new functions or organs, are an undemonstrated postulate. We can demonstrate many neutral and negative mutations, but no positive ones. The claim that the appearance of resistance to man-made chemicals (herbicides, fungicides, antibiotics etc) is evidence of positive mutations is questioned on the ground that it belongs to the multitude of defence mechanisms (like healing or acquiring immunity) which defend the existing life functions of an organism without creating new ones.
Dr. Maciej Giertych holds an M.A. in forestry from Oxford University in England and a Ph. D. in tree physiology from Toronto University, Canada, and a D.Sc. in genetics from the Agricultural Academy in Poznan, Poland. A population geneticist, Dr. Giertych has published more than 200 scientific papers and several books, primarily in the field of population genetics of forest trees.
Send him mail
This article can be viewed full screen at
[ Comment Archives ]