The End of Evolution

By John Bottrill

This is not another bash Darwin book. Instead, it looks at how far his principles of macro and micro-evolution apply not only to the development of life, but also of the universe, the Earth, humanity - even human history. I find no evidence of continuous progression in any of these; stop/start - yes; instances of micro-evolution - yes; how else to explain the different racial skin colours? But, I find no instances of overall, organised progression.
In specific instances - yes, there is organisation. For example, the existence of different eyes is a sort of miracle. It necessitates their various structures - cornea, retina, nerves, blood vessels - all developing together at the same time in history for a particular animal. Could they have developed separately at different rates and then come together by chance? Fiddlesticks! The genesis of any machine shows previous deliberate design and ordered execution. Before you jump to any conclusions at this point, I should say "I don't know", but the research that's gone into this book may help.
You like to feel you know your ideas and beliefs are well-grounded. This book will suggest to you you’re standing on quicksand. To get out of such metaphorical quicksand you need a metaphorical rope; the usual one is called belief. "We believe what we want to believe." And so, you accept believe blindly what you’re told by scientists or even a Prime Minister – especially a Prime Minister. The further a belief is from reality, the more firmly it is held. But belief is not fact. Grasp your rope firmly; this book will shake it.
This book doesn’t espouse any particular philosophy or approach. The orthodox dogma is that there is a pattern of development called Evolution. We accept it because it’s easier than not accepting it. This evolutionary approach is often a tacit presupposition in studying the development not just of life, but of the universe, Earth itself, human development, history etc. Since the approach is not appropriate in such cases (if indeed in any), facts/evidence have to be warped to produce a coherent picture. Scientists do that; newspapers do the same with the information that's fed to them and thence to us. And if the facts don’t fit the picture, either the facts are not true or we’re biassed....
Deeper examination of orthodox scientific theories has meant looking into into such areas as creation/design, materialism, physical laws and constants,synchronicity, coding, time, consciousness, reality and alternative realities, life, scientific bias, perception, climate change, previous mass extinctions and the coming extinction.

• Language: English
• Publisher: John Bottrill
• Release date: Feb 17, 2020
• ISBN: 9780463002001

John Bottrill

John Bottrill , Galicia, SpainA retired academic psychologist, I've been living in comfort in Northern Spain - a region like the Lake District, but with good weather for 17 years. This place has magic - it's the nicest place I've ever lived. Personally, I'd happily live and eventually die here. But family reasons necessitate a return to UK.The house is stone-built 1691 with some land and lots of space for guests who come to find out more about the area, or just to think about a new life in Northern Spain. You can see the house at smallholdinginparadise.blogspot.com.es - it's paradise!You can read a book about the early Boterel family, which came to UK with William the Conquerer and were the ancestors of President George Washington, at www.bottrillfamilyhistory.com or http://bottrillfamilyhistory.blogspot.com.es. For an unusual children's book or Embarrassing Palmistry you might try http;//www.contactenglish.eu. That site also has a Scottish romance, unusual in that it deals with the machinations of the Priory of Sion, pros and cons of moving to France, a story about Heaven and unusual information about the Knights Templar.You can equally well access them at www.Smashwords.com.

Book preview

The End of Evolution

John Bottrill, Ph.D.

Smashwords Edition

Copyright 2020 John Bottrill

Other titles on Smashwords by Dr Bottrill

The Trouble with France

The King's Toads

More King's Toads

Practical Palmistry

The Edinburgh Grail

No Carrots for Dink

Replacement in Heaven

The Templar Heresy

The Cover:-

The Tower represents current scientific dogmata built on false premises, as examined in this book. The energy symbolised by the lightning represents nuclear war, a solar flare, the surge of heat from Carbon emissions etc. Any one will bring the Tower down. People will try to escape the chaos and destruction - to Mars? ......please!

Thank you for downloading this e-book. This book remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be redistributed to others for commercial or non-commercial purposes. If you enjoyed this book, please encourage your friends to download their own copy from their favourite authorized retailer. Thank you for your support.

The End of Evolution

This book is an intelligent questioning of various scientific theories we are asked to accept. It’s not a particularly scholarly treatise, despite all the research involved. It’s a ‘must read’ - especially for first year university students before their minds get ossified by established dogmas.

You like to feel you know where you stand. This book will suggest to you you’re standing on quicksand. To get out of such metaphorical quicksand you need a metaphorical rope; the usual one is called belief – blind acceptance of what you’re told by a professor or a Prime Minister – especially a Prime Minister. The further a belief is from reality, the more firmly it is held. Grasp the rope firmly; this book will shake it.

This book doesn’t espouse any particular philosophy or approach. The orthodox dogma is that there is a pattern of development called Evolution. We accept it because it’s easier than not accepting it. The evolutionary approach is often used to study the development not just of life, but of the universe, life, history etc. Since the approach is not appropriate in such cases (if indeed in any), facts/evidence have to be warped to produce a coherent picture. Newspapers do the same with the information that's fed to us. And if the facts don’t fit the picture, either the facts are not true or we’re stupid….

The text ranges over history, philosophy, physics, climatology, anthropology, geology etc. using difficult words like exsanguination, phthisis and automobile. It will present facts/ideas that may be new to you, but assumes a reasonable background of general knowledge.

Table of Contents

Chapter I. How did the universe evolve?

Problems with the standard view

The present consensus is that the physical universe – with the particular laws and constants vital to our existence - just popped into being from 'nothing'. 'Nothing' existed (an oxymoron, if ever I've heard one) until, at a point of time without warning, there occurred a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago and something existed - the universe as we know it.

As far as I can understand Hawking, the Bang was an unimaginably tiny point at an extremely high temperature and infinite density. You can't have a point in 'nothing'; 'nothing' doesn't contain points. Time can be said to be a measure of motion. With no matter there can be no motion: ipso facto, there can be no point of time. It's not clear how the Bang's tiny point can have had density without mass if there wasn’t any previously. Was there mass previously? Can you have temperature without mass?

There couldn’t have been nothing before the Bang. Something can’t become nothing; nothing can’t become something. The problem here is mass from nothing; the problem for evolutionists is life from nothing; the problem for anthropologists is Homo Sapiens from nowhere. I'll look at evolution in the next chapter. This one will examine the first problem.

If the ‘Big Bang’ was a moment in time, there must have been a previous moment - something must have happened before the event. Did time exist before Big Bang? If it didn’t then how could have Big Bang occurred temporally? If there was no time then, there must have been no moments and no sudden bang. If time is a 'function' of space/matter, and no matter/space existed at that point, did the bang create time also? No time means no matter; how then did a big bang type explosion occur? Later, I'll examine the proposition that time is not a function of matter.

Anyhow, the bang point then expanded rapidly creating space and matter. It did not expand into space, since space did not exist. Space was created and stretched resulting from the creation of matter. Space and matter are interdependent – they are part of the same phenomenon and could not exist separately. Is mass a property of space, or vice versa? But where did mass come from? The Big Bang violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy because it can't account for whence all heat and matter comes. The law of the Conservation of Mass governs mass which exists. With no mass there's no law, or are such laws even more fundamental? Do the laws of Physics exist simply because it’s their nature, or are they just descriptions we’ve worked out? Are they a language – the language of Physics? I’ll look into this further at the end of the book.

The law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so the singularity must have contained all the mass of our present universe. If so, did the law pertain at that point? Were more than a trillion, trillion, trillion tons of matter created by the bang? Were they there before, or have they grown since along with space? Um.

Hawking's 'point' sounds rather like a black hole, although Hawking doesn't specifically call it one. Our universe contains black holes created from mass. So, if the bang was a black hole, it must have depended on a pre-existing universe and the creation of the universe was not from nothing. If it was not a black hole, then any comparison with one is misleading. All we know then is what it wasn’t, which doesn't produce a helpful hypothesis.

The ‘Big Bang’ may be better described as the ‘Big Bounce’ - a previous universe existed before this universe. The previous universe may have contracted and formed that infinitely dense mass, forcing a re-expansion that would become today’s universe. Our universe may have ‘bounced’ into existence. This approach has the advantage that it avoids the Conservation of Mass problem.

The Big Bounce theory is based on the idea that the universe expands and contracts, each time bouncing into existence. This means something must always have existed, whether matter or energy. So, some sort of universe existed before there were gods. Many unrelated and widespread traditions are based on such a premise That proves nothing, but it's interesting and is dealt with below. How often has this happened previously?

Hawking suggested that the moment of creation conjured up universes like bubbles, big and small. If the bubble were 'sufficient', it would last and expand; if not it would collapse – like soap bubbles. And if there were more than one such bubble/universe created, several might survive. How would this relate to the idea of parallel universes? More on this later.

Another theory suggests that the Big Bang was not a point, but occurred everywhere in space. That’s interesting since we now know that space is not empty; it contains its own energy. When space expands, it forms matter. I do not claim to understand this.

Anyhow, to get back to the results of the Bounce/Bang. The tiny, tiny point, hot and dense, immediately expanded at least 100 times almost instantaneously. Such exponential doubling would be faster than the speed of light. Did the universal constants apply at that instant? Since there wasn't any light until much later, evidently not. Expansion led to rapid cooling, permitting the creation of matter - a dense plasma of neutrinos, neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, and photons – all within 14 seconds.

Where did the heat go? Entropy requires that there must have been colder areas of space to absorb the heat or we would exist now at billions of degrees. But space was still being created if the universe was indeed expanding after the Bang. If the Big Bang took place everywhere in space, one wonders how temperature would have dissipated in such a short period of time. It's an entropy problem.

The only way to cool [the gas] is for something else, which is even colder, to take heat away, And the only candidate constituent of the universe that could have been even colder than the gas is the dark matter. (Barkana R: Astrophysics,Tel Aviv University). So, what is Dark Matter, and where did that come from? No one knows, but it makes up an unobservable 85% of all the matter in the universe; our normal matter makes up just 15%.

After the Big Bang, the universe existed as a dark expanse of hydrogen and radiation (the Cosmic Microwave Background). Some 380,000 years after the Bang, matter in the light-less universe had cooled to -270ºC – enough for atoms to form. The cosmic background radiation had been the only thing keeping this gas hot. Apparently, now the hydrogen began to 'clump', although nobody seems to know quite how.

Did this create gravity or did gravity cause the clumping? Apparently, warping of space produces gravity; gravity warps space-time. Is there evidence for this, or is this just theory? The universe did not begin in space-time: it is space-time. Orthodox teaching is that protons and neutrons collided to make hydrogen, which in turn went on during ºthe next half a billion years to give rise through nuclear fusion in the first stars to deuterium and lithium.

"…the standard view of the universe at the present time is that everything is supposedly receding from everything else, so if one extrapolates this back to the time of the Big Bang, how do particles that are receding from one another subsequently collide with and annihilate each other? On the other hand, if the meaning of the idea that space exploded everywhere during the Big Bang just means that particles scattered in every direction, why would high temperatures necessarily interfere with -- or lower temperatures facilitate -- the rate of collisions?" (Whitehouse L: Cosmology and the Reality Problem).

Why are the farthest stars receding more rapidly that the nearer stars? If you take a balloon, pain spots on it, then blow it up, the faster it expands, the faster the spots will recede from the centre. As you go further back in time, the universe becomes more compact and warped. It would only become infinite at the singularity if it had been infinite to begin with.

During the next 1.6 million years later, gravity began to form the first stars from clouds of gas. The 'Cosmic Dawn' of the first massive ultraviolet stars occurred some 180 million years after the Big Bang: nine billion years before the birth of our Solar System. Astronomers have detected a signal from the first stars as they appeared and illuminated the universe, in observations that have been hailed as revolutionary." (The Guardian 1.3.2018). They absorbed background radiation and died as black holes and supernovae around 250 million years after the Big Bang.

This gave rise to second generation stars, which could form carbon, oxygen and iron, silicon, and sulphur – the bases of life as we know it. These stars died as novae or supernovae and blasted the heavier elements throughout space. Carbon results from the fusion of three Helium atoms; when there are four, you get Oxygen.

This allowed planets to be formed around subsequent generations of stars. Elements other than hydrogen are only made in stars; planets are formed from the debris of exploding stars. Gravity then slowed the universe' expansion down. But by five billion years later it had begun speeding up again. Why?

A learned TV programme assured me that a swirling disc of star debris began to form tiny grains of minerals, which eventually formed clumps and even planets. But meteorites/asteroids are not clusters of elements; they are mineral rocks. This array of scientific observations has been stitched together to create an evolutionary progression. It's like taking several primate skeletons, arranging them in some sort of order, and calling it human evolution. It's all supposition; it's called science!

We are fed explanations like this because scientists are hobbled by the 'not-to-be-questioned' idea of continuous evolution. There may have been 'evolution', but there's precious little evidence and lots of ‘it-has-to-have happened' and ‘we may suppose’. The point of this book is to examine evidence for such evolution, where it exists.

Getting back to orthodoxy:-

"Just 4 percent of the universe is visible, comprising all the matter plus all the energy. Dark Matter constitutes another 24 %, and the other 72% Dark Energy, whatever that is. The leading theory for dark energy is that it is a property of space….Albert Einstein was the first to understand that space was not simply empty. He also understood that more space could continue to come into existence. (McCoy: Fringe: Smashwords 2014).

Einstein believed Dark Energy to be a property of space itself. Expansion in effect produces more space; it also produces more energy which then results in further expansion. Another explanation for how space acquires energy comes from the quantum theory of matter. In this theory, empty space is actually full of temporary (virtual) particles that continually form and then disappear. (McCoy; Fringe). This apparently gives rise to 'Vacuum Energy' ie. 'something from nothing.' Space is not a vacuum and it’s not nothing. Nothing is the total absence of thingness. Two bodies separated by nothing must be in contact. Two bodies separated by space are not in contact. Therefore, empty space is not nothing.

This would set the Big Bang free of its violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy. As space expands/stretches, more vacuum energy is necessarily created fuelling faster expansion. Since the farthest stars are receding faster than the nearer, does this mean that the stretching of space is not uniform? If so, why?

Cultural Theories

Astrophysics seems to be getting nearer to the Big Bang and the origin of the universes. If there was an origin, there will necessarily be an end – they go together. And ends are followed by new beginnings. Does the Big Bounce theory confirm this? A quick look at various traditions proves interesting. These exhibit an amazing uniformity but throw no light on the evolution scenario propounded above. They come down on the side of Intelligent Design/Creation.

Judaeo-Christian

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).’ 'And the earth was without form, and void"; void of what – land, life…? But the ‘Heaven’ that God created in the beginning is not the same as the ‘Heaven’ he created in in Genesis 1:6/8.

As a non-Christian, it sounds