Impossibility Theory, An Advance over Mere Indeterminacy: By Werner Fredsenberg

Previously I have proved that life cannot have evolved. Today I will prove that life cannot exist.

Let us begin with Samuel Johnson’s response when asked whether we have free will. He replied that all theory holds that we do not, all experience that we do. A similar paradox occurs in the realm of Impossibility Theory. Many things occur in biology that all science says are possible, while all common sense says that they are not.

Consider the development of a barely-existent zygote into seven pounds of puzzled and alarmed baby. (“Where the hell is this?”) Anyone familiar with Murphy’s Law knows that it isn’t possible. Half an hour with a textbook of embryology will confirm this judgement. It is a case of phenomenal complexity following phenomenal complexity building on phenomenal complexity with, almost always, no errors of consequence.

The resulting little science project enters wherever we are with a squall, the ductus arteriosus closes, the nursing instinct kicks in, and the interloper eventually grows into, God help us, a teenager (arguably the only flaw in the process).

Those with better sense than to read physiology may not grasp the wild improbability that this will work. Start with the cell. The likelihood that it will function is that of winning seven Irish Sweepstakes in a row. The chemical machinery, the mechanics—endoplasmic reticula, ribosomes, various flavors of RNA, and all dozens of such things functioning sufficiently flawlessly to continue in existence, rococo chemicals going about their business without gumming each other up.

Imposs--ligaments

Suspensory ligaments, connecting the lens of the eye to the ciliary body. Do you really believe these delicate ropes can form perfectly all by themselves ? If so, I figure somebody must have put something in your drugs.

Common sense says that it can’t work. The sciences say that it can, and the fact that it does lends a certain weight to their argument. Each step in this impossible process can be shown to follow the laws of chemistry and physics. It all works. There is no need for spirits or poltergeists to explain it. Except that it obviously can’t happen.

Sez me, Something Else has to be involved. You tell me what, and we will split the Nobel money.

Here we run into one of those paradoxes that no one looks at because it would have dire consequences for how we think about things. Everything that happens in our heads as we think, or think we think, can similarly be shown ineluctably to follow the laws of chemistry and physics, meaning that we have to think what we think we think because it is predetermined. Back to Dr. Johnson.

A useful trait of the human mind, one that keeps us from going mad, is that is that if we see something enough times we begin to believe that it makes sense. This is not just the basis of quantum physics but of most of life. Women have babies all the time. It almost always works fine. Therefore it must make sense.

Again, physiology. Consider how the bones of our little bundle of joy turn into those of a middle linebacker in college. For a very small, short hollow bone to grow into a large, long hollow bone, unlikely things have to happen. Osteoclasts inside the cavity have to eat away the bone to make a larger cavity. Osateoblasts outside have to lay down more bone. They do this in precise coordination, which is impossible because they are on opposite sides of the cavity. Look at the skeleton of an adult. The bones are smooth, and flawlessly formed. The bone also has to grow in length. The mechanism of the articulation also has to grow, and do it exactly right. All of this works perfectly, which is impossible.

Think about the ear: Tympanum-malleus-incus-stapes-cochlea. Incoming sounds vibrates the eardrum which jiggles one little bone that jiggles another that jiggles a third that jiggles the cochlea which figures out what is going on sonically. This works for vaguely 20 Hz to 20 kHz in young females. Dogs and cats have greater ranges. In people it functions with little impairment for seventy years.

While this does not seem at all likely, it does fit nicely into the dominant paradigm of crossword puzzle and tinker toy. This holds that the universe is like a gigantic crossword. Some parts we have filled in. Others we have-not figured out yet, but we know that it is only a matter of time until we have it all. Nothing is inherently unknowable. We can fill in the whole puzzle.

The other half of this understanding is that everything can be explained mechanistically. If we can show that something occurs through a series of reactions, we have explained it entirely. This is beguiling, and redolent of nineteenth-century simplism. But…is it even plausible?

The following simplified description of the biochemical functioning of the retina is from Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolutionby Michael Behe. The book, which I recommend, is accessible to the intelligent laymen, for whom it is written. The author includes the following technoglop on the biochemistry of the retina to give a flavor of the complexity of things. The sensible reader will skip  most of it.

When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)

GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub. Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane that, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision. If the reactions mentioned above were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP, and sodium ions would quickly be depleted. Something has to turn off the proteins that were turned on and restore the cell to its original state. Several mechanisms do this. First, in the dark the ion channel (in addition to sodium ions) also lets calcium ions into the cell. The calcium is pumped back out by a different protein so that a constant calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, calcium ion concentration decreases, too. The posphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, slows down at lower calcium concentration. Second, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. So the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a single photon. Trans-retinal eventually falls off of rhodopsin and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, trans-retinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol— a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal, a cycle is complete.

The biochemistry is way over my head, but the complexity is clear. The idea that this came about by accident requires powers of belief beyond mine, and the idea that it functions flawlessly for seventy years is more so. Ask a biochemist whether he can construct this system in the laboratory. Ask him whether he can construct any system of similar complexity that will work, maintaining itself, for seventy years.

From all of which I conclude that we are more puzzled than we believe we are. These thoughts will not be well-received by those more inclined to protect the paradigm than to examine it. Oh well.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
23 Comments
copperhead
copperhead
February 4, 2016 1:13 pm

I read Darwins Black Box a number of years ago, another fascinating part of the book was the complexity of blood clotting. How blood clotting requires a number of intricate steps to complete the process, if it happens too fast your blood becomes sludge in your veins or too slow and you bleed to death. Our bodies are such complex systems it is really hard to believe it was all just chance.

RHS Jr
RHS Jr
February 4, 2016 1:37 pm

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Ps14:1 By Science, God is impossible but He is real. Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it. Ecc8:17 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Is14:14 Hath not the potter power over the clay. Rom9:21 Seek knowledge but use it wisely and justly and please don’t ignore The Creator.

Bob
Bob
February 4, 2016 2:14 pm

Where can we access Fred’s work on evolution?

Suzanna
Suzanna
February 4, 2016 2:41 pm

don’t know where to access that Bob,

but isn’t biochemistry awesome!? Yes of course.

This is the stuff that makes people reconsider atheism.

One thing that has bugged me forever, is the apparent lack

of evolution. Every generation has to go through machinations

to “mature” and once that happens, all we have to offer is the

grand-parenting role. Then again, some people never “mature”

and atrophy (so to speak) at age 13-14. We see some of them

everyday.

Anonymous
Anonymous
February 4, 2016 2:48 pm

I’ve never heard an evolutionist give any real explanations of why we have things like the Bombardier beetle.

Or the eye.

Or how anything more advanced than the amoeba would “evolve” if more suitable to survival was the driving force behind it.

Interestingly, everyone believing in (believing is not the same as knowing) evolution seems to believe and teach that life “evolved” from non life but when confronted with the fact that no one has ever demonstrated this is possible they fall back on evolution only describing how species evolved but not life itself.

AnarchoPagan
AnarchoPagan
February 4, 2016 2:54 pm

So if God created all this biochemistry stuff, I guess that would be the same God that sent bears to kill 42 children for making fun of Elisha’s bald head?

Kill Bill
Kill Bill
February 4, 2016 3:18 pm

Oooooo k.

Where does the light come from that I see in my dreams…

Stucky
Stucky
February 4, 2016 3:38 pm

[imgcomment image[/img]

Anonymous
Anonymous
February 4, 2016 3:58 pm

Kill Bill,

Perception of light is a function of the brain, not the light.

The brain is active in your sleep and its perceptive centers are functioning without external physical inputs.

Dutchman
Dutchman
February 4, 2016 4:10 pm

Evolution is supported by the ‘common ancestor’.

Note that almost all species of animals have the same organs: Eyes, ears, stomachs, liver, etc, etc. And all inherit traits via DNA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

DRUD
DRUD
February 4, 2016 4:14 pm

The bumblebee conundrum, at least, has been solved. If you look at a single stroke of a bumblebee’s wings, it cannot provide enough lift to get its body off the ground. However, when looks at multiple strokes, the solution is clear: the bumblebee’s wings use the turbulence still in the air from the previous stroke to enhance the current one, providing more lift and allowing bumblebees to fly.

bb
bb
February 4, 2016 4:26 pm

Where did all the bugs come from ? Where did the abominable snowman come from ?.Where did the universe come from.?.God says behold. Romans 1 I give you the light of creation . Romans 2 .I give you the light of conscience . Romans 3 .I give you the light of Christ.

Now you know who created the abominable snowman.

Stucky
Stucky
February 4, 2016 4:30 pm

bb

Don’t you normally charge $50 for such gems of wisdom?

Stucky
Stucky
February 4, 2016 4:49 pm

“I’ve never heard an evolutionist give any real explanations of why we have things like the Bombardier beetle.” ———- Anonymous

Ahh haaa! A follower of the Creation Institute fake science!

Bomby The Bombardier Beetle! I know the book very well ….. sadly, I read it to both of my kids.
[imgcomment image[/img]

The main idea being that this beetle’s defense mechanism is to combine some chemicals to produce a massive explosion out of it’s ass … sort of like what happens when El Coyote El Whatever eats five pounds of burritos made by the beautiful blonde ….. and so, HOW CAN THAT HAPPEN without Bomby blowing himself up in the process??!!!

You can read the Adult version here —- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

You can read the deceptive and insidious children’s version here —-

Bombardier Beetle

OR, you can read the Scientific version here —- http://gizmodo.com/how-this-beetle-shoots-a-jet-of-superheated-liquid-out-1701389198 —- and make sure to notice the study published in “Science” ….. not that I expect a Creationist to actually care about, you know, real science. But, thanks for playing.

Desertrat
Desertrat
February 4, 2016 4:49 pm

The Big Hodad in the sky said, “Here ya go, kids. Have fun.” Then he went off for a beer or two.

Scientists say that the universe is umpteen billion years old. That says that a day to Big Hodad is a really large load of years. Fine by me; I’m not in any hurry.

But when he comes back to check on us, he’s gonna be pissed.

Stucky
Stucky
February 4, 2016 4:50 pm

[imgcomment image[/img]

Stucky
Stucky
February 4, 2016 4:57 pm

Atom&Eve ACT I

Atom is a poor, solitary atom, who yearns for companionship and true love. One day, Atom feels something strange and wonderful. Someone is looking at him through a scanning probe microscope. Perhaps, Atom wonders, perhaps that someone could be… the woman of his dreams.

ATOM:

It’s elementary.
I know I’m just an atom,
Down in the lowest stratum
Of humblest society.
From what I learned in school
I know I should be bonding.
My parents are desponding
Because I’m not a molecule.
My future seems so, so, so very miniscule.

What if I dream of bigger things?
They will object.
Oh, sorrow!
They say I’m made of tiny strings.
Are they correct?
Oh, sorrow, sorrow!
I feel some larger force
From some enormous source.
I dream of inter–.
Can we connect?
Tomorrow? Tomorrow?

Oh, a woman’s love is just what I have wanted.
But women are on such a bigger scale
That a nanoscopic guy could well be daunted —
Yet somehow I don’t think that I will fail!
It’s true that I don’t have a massive body.
Yes, it’s true that what I’ve got is pretty crude.
Eight protons may seem far from being gaudy,
By thirty orders, more or less, of magnitude.

My unseen love may be looking at me
Through some big microscope.
If she’s not a he, I am sure that she
Is excited at what little she can see —
At least that is what I hope!
I feel her gaze in a glancing way,
But how can she really know
That of all of the zillion little dots,
That in that crowd
There is standing proud
One who has the hots for her —
Though he’s just a little schmoe!

No wandering atom I,
Now that I have caught snatches
Of who my perfect match is.
This very Eve I will try-y-y somehow to catch… this gigantical lady’s eye!

Atom&Eve ACT II

Back in Act One of our opera, the little oxygen atom, Atom, intuited that someone was watching him through an atomic force microscope. Here in Act Two, we discover that that someone is Eve, a lovely scientist. For Eve, looking down through her microscope, it’s love at first sight. Let’s join Eve as she ogles her little Atom.

EVE:

Poor wand’ring one!
Look at this oxygen atom,
See him attract!
See me react!
See my heart run!

Could we combine?
Or would such love be forbidden?
Love that entails
Such diff’rent scales —
Eensy and elephantine?

Does he know I exist?
If so, then will he resist
All the force of my nature
That yearns for us to have kissed?

Will he ask for a date?
When? Oh, when? Oh, why should he wait?
Here’s a technical challenge:
Now, how will we copu—?
How-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow?
How-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow?
How-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow?
How-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow-ow?

How will we mate —
I and this oxygen atom?
Well now, gee whiz,
The answer is:
I will oxygenate!

more here —> http://www.improbable.com/ig/2003/atom-eve-libretto.html

Anonymous
Anonymous
February 4, 2016 5:10 pm

Dutchman “Note that almost all species of animals have the same organs: Eyes, ears, stomachs, liver, etc, etc. And all inherit traits via DNA.”

That would indicate a common designer more than it would a common ancestor.

Suzanna
Suzanna
February 4, 2016 6:51 pm

Some people dream in living color…

others in black and white.

SpecOpsAlpha
SpecOpsAlpha
February 4, 2016 7:40 pm

LOL! Creationists LOVE to talk about the probability of the Universe happening as it is as being near zero. But since God must be at least as complex if not more so then the probability of God would be even less than the probability of the Universe.

Evolution exists, it exists at glacial pace over eons, and God started it. Now everyone can be happy.

🙂

EL Coyote
EL Coyote
February 4, 2016 9:11 pm

I liked the article. I was also intrigued by a comment from somebody who said his life was essentially lived in the past; his thoughts reacting microseconds (in my case milliseconds or even seconds after) to external events, he said he was living his life as an observer of his own actions.

Speaking rationally, I agree somewhat with the nutholes who doubt the unfathomable first cause or prime mover. Creators do not exist, iPhones came into being in a big bang. Poof! The chips and memory and freq detectors and tiny antennas just assembled themselves. However, I have no other explanation for reality and bb’s existence. Am I mad? Is bb only a product of my imagination?

EL Coyote
EL Coyote
February 4, 2016 9:13 pm

I wonder if Darwin’s Box has an explanation for buildings falling at pancake speed?

EL Coyote
EL Coyote
February 4, 2016 9:17 pm

KB, your perception of light is a memory contained in a few molecules arranged so that it is indelible. I have heard that blind folks remember light however dimly. I seem to recall the smell of my first girlfriend quite vividly, that memory will never be erased. Though, I have noticed that Google maps tends to relocate buildings and streets from where they were when I was young.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading