
A molecular-based depiction of evolution: from the formation of the hydrogen molecule, bottom left, 13.7-billion-years ago, to the formation of the human molecule, top right, 150,000-years ago.

A molecular-based depiction of evolution: from the formation of the hydrogen molecule, bottom left, 13.7-billion-years ago, to the formation of the human molecule, top right, 150,000-years ago.

In science, evolution is the Darwinian name (compare: metamorphosis) for the mechanistic process of carbon-based chnopsological form change.

Free energy minimization | Principle
In the early 20th century, the number of scholars who began to glean the view that evolution operates macroscopically in terms of a free energy and or thermodynamic potential minimization principle include: Lawrence Henderson (1917-1935), Alfred Lotka (1925), and Harold Blum (1934), the latter two each progressively citing the former.

Etymology
The term “évolution” (French) was coined in by Swiss naturalist Charles Bonnet in circa 1760 used at the same time with his synonyms of “révolution” and “métamorphose”, in the context of understanding development, nascent ideas on extinctions, and construction of a classification scheme in the great unbroken chain of being, as he saw things. [1] In this original linguistic sense, evolution seems to have the following underlying etymological meaning:

évolution = [révolution + métamorphose]

Bonnet’s usage, over the next century, supposedly, was passed along through the works of French naturalist Jean Lamarck, whose work influenced English natural philosopher Herbert Spencer, whose terminology usage later was adopted by English naturalist Charles Darwin. [1]

The first dominate usage of the term “evolution” in English is found in the works of English natural philosopher Herbert Spencer, who came to adopt some of Lamarck’s evolution theories, after becoming curious about exposed fossils he observed while working as a civil engineer from 1837 to 1841. In 1852, he published an article that proposed a conception of natural evolution, albeit one lacking in underlying mechanism. In 1857, he planned a system of “synthetic philosophy”, covering biology (chnopsology), psychology, sociology, and ethics, wherein the central evolutionary idea was the progressive transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous, to which he added in the conservation of energy among other ideas from the physics of that decade (see also: Spencerian dilemma). [15]

In 1866, Charles Darwin was persuaded by Alfred Wallace to begin using Spencer’s phrase “survival of the fittest” rather than “natural selection” in key passages of his On the Origin of Species. In the 1872 sixth edition, Darwin began to use the term “evolution”, albeit only sparingly. [15]


Circa 2005 Gallop polls (Ѻ) of belief in evolution—or development from earlier life forms—by education level, indicating that 40 percent of US college graduates don’t believe in evolution.

Circa 2005 Gallop polls (Ѻ) of belief in evolution—or development from earlier life forms—by education level, indicating that 40 percent of US college graduates don’t believe in evolution.

Metamorphosis | Transmutation | Synthesis

See main: Metamorphosis

The modern hmolscience technically correct term for the Darwinian-connotative term "evolution", is chemical "synthesis". In the human case, one says that over the last 14-billion years, the universe has synthesized "human molecules" products from hydrogen atoms reactants, through a sequenced step-by-step chemical mechanism.

Theories

See main: Evolution theorists

The following timeline gives a short historical overview of pre-Darwin, Darwin, and post-Darwin "origin of species" (evolution) theorists. Charles Darwin, his in his 'Historical Sketch', on those who advocated variations on a theory of origin of species, prior to 1859, gives thirty-four authors who believe in the modification of species, or at least disbelieve in separate acts of creation, of which twenty-seven have written on special branches of natural history or geology, in which the two foremost of these, according to Darwin, are Goethe and Geoffroy.

Thermodynamics

See main: Evolution thermodynamics; Thermodynamic evolution

In a thermodynamics perspective, one can analyze the "process of change from one form to another" from a thermodynamic systems point of view, in which daily solar heat input actuates Carnot engine cycles according to which systems dynamically migrate or transform subtly, within each cycle, in structure, in the direction of free energy minimums due to the regulatory actions of the combined law of thermodynamics. From a sub-atomic or chemical point of view, one can study the process of form change through the logic of coupled chemical reactions, such as are evident in molecular evolution tables. [3]

In the 2008 book The Chemistry of Evolution: the Development of our Ecosystem, authors R.J.P. Williams and J.J.R. da Silva argue that a biological evolution is inadequate and should be accompanied with the thermodynamics universal views; that species evolution is a thermodynamics necessity to form energy efficient capturing and degradation systems, in which efficiency is rated as the system fitness. [12]


The last common ancestor, dubbed M 168, of all existing humans, according to genetic tracking.

The last common ancestor, dubbed M 168, of all existing humans, according to genetic tracking.

Since nearly the initiation of thermodynamics, it has been argued that the laws of thermodynamics violate evolution. The following 2010 satire comment of Canadian writer Paul DesOrmmeaux is a humorous spin on this: [7]

“Evolution violates the second, third, fourth, and any future laws of thermodynamics that science types can dream up.”

The 1999 chapter “Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics Refute the New-Darwinian Synthesis?”, by Bruce Weber and David Depew, is one example of this perspective. [8]

A few examples of scientists, who are also creationism advocates, oo have publicly deprecated evolution as the violation of the second law include: Andrew McIntosh, Christopher Jordan, and Stuart Burgess. [11]

M168
According to genetic tracking of the the Y-chromosome, every single person alive today is descendant from a single man, known as "M168" who lived in and migrated out of the East African Rift Valley some 59,000 years ago. In other words, M168 is the last common human ancestor to all currently existing humans.

Public acceptance | Religion
This doctrine of evolution, that humans evolved from lower forms of life, as of 2005, has an average sixty-two percent public acceptance. [5] In the United States, the theory of creationism is believed over that of evolution (by a 60/40 difference).


Left: Public acceptance of evolution (2005). [5] Right: a 2005 world belief, or non-belief (yellow), view on: God (purple), spirit or life force (light blue).

In this group of 40 percent of Americans who believe evolution to be true, as cited by Sam Harris (2006) only 12 percent believe that life (animate things) on earth evolved through natural processes, without the interference of a deity. [20]

In 2016, Pew Research polls found that 51% of Americans, under the age of 30, believe in secular evolution, i.e. evolution not directed by any divine power; a jump from 40 percent in 2009. (Ѻ)

Evolution timeline
The following evolution timeline video shows evolution lineage from the hydrogen atom to the human molecule, a modern-day take on the earlier "great chain of being" model of existence.


Section on "evolution" from a Pakistani biology textbook, crouched in the back drop of god talk (Allah) and anti-chance objection. [21]

Section on "evolution" from a Pakistani biology textbook, crouched in the back drop of god talk (Allah) and anti-chance objection. [21]

Evolution | Pakistan
The following is the chapter section on “evolution” from a biology textbook in Pakistan: [21]

Facts about Creation of living organisms
The theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin in the 19th century, is one of the most unbelievable and irrational claims in history. Despite this, over its 150-year history the people who have accepted it have failed to produce any scientific evidence, supporting the theory. The theory puts forth the irrational claim that all living organisms, plants, animals and human beings are the result of blind, unconscious, accidental events.

Evolutionists believe that millions of years ago, in the primal soup of the oceans or pools of water, mindless atoms with no knowledge, powers of reason, came together in certain proportions and later, by chance [C#1], formed the proteins and cells that even today's scientists with most advanced laboratory technology have not been able to duplicate. They go so far as to say that these cells, in their turn—and again by sheer chance [C#2]—formed starfish, sparrows, hawks, penguins, cats, lambs, loins, apples, apricots, pomegranates, figs and even human beings. If human efforts cannot produce any living thing by using the whole pool of human knowledge, how can life be brought into being with the aid of unconscious atoms and chance [C#3] events? Any intelligent human being of conscience can certainly understand that all living things including himself cannot be the result of chance [C#4] events. Every intelligent [I#1], unprejudiced person with a conscious knows that Allah has created all these living things with His incomparable power.

Here, firstly, we note that the "blind accidental chance" model described here seems to be Richard Dawkins model, which is a brand of dumb atheism, as compared to someone like Benedict Spinoza:

“Nothing in nature is by chance. Something appears to be chance only because of our lack of knowledge.”
— Benedict Spinoza (c.1675); Publication (Ѻ); cited (Ѻ) by Heinz-Otto Pietgen in Baustein des Chaos (1992)

and his vicarious followers, e.g. Goethe, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Henderson, i.e. smart atheism, who do not subscribe to chance-based evolution or form change. Secondly, in respect to "mindless atoms" and "unconscious atoms" were are reminded of Voltaire's discussion of "thinking atoms" and "tormented atoms", in his Poem on the Lisbon disaster (1755), and also of Christian apologeticist Ravi Zacharias' objections, in his The End of Reason: a Response to the New Atheists (2008), to these atomic terms. [22] To continue:

The universe with all its creations both living and non-living has a flawless design, unique systems and an ordered balance that provide all the conditions necessary for living things to survive. Scientific discoveries, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries, have shown that the flawless design of the universe is clearly the work of supreme intelligence [I#2], The Allah, with His supreme intelligence [I#3], limitless knowledge and eternal power created the universe. How is it possible to think the balance in the ecosystem and the universe as a whole came about my mere coincidence when the extraordinary harmony of nature is observable even with the naked eye?

It is the most unreasonable claim to say that the universe, each point of which suggests the existence of its creator, has come into being on its own. The fact about the creation is that there is a mighty force in the universe that has created all different types of living things once by special creation and in them have put the ability to reproduce their next generations. This mighty force is Allah the Almighty Who is the Creator and Who sustains life on earth.

The hypothesis that two prokaryote cells invaded another prokaryote cell resulting in the evolution of a eukaryote cell is as baseless as someone’s claim that two rickshaws invaded a third one and in this way a motor car was evolved. The above hypothesis suggests that one of the invading prokaryote cells was changed into mitochondria and another invading prokaryote cell was modified into chloroplast.

Thousands of questions arise from the above hypothesis:

1. How did prokaryote cells came into being?
2. How it started division?
3. How proteins, the most complicated organic compounds formed of units called amino acids, were formed?
4 How nucleic acids, which are also complicated organic compounds formed of units formed of units called nucleotides, were formed?
5. What is the probability [P#1] of formation of these two essential organic compounds together? As for the synthesis of one, the other is required. If, for example, both of the above organic compounds were formed by chance [C#5] factor, which is practically impossible, at different places then the evolution of a cell and its further division would not have been possible.
6. How autotrophic cyanobacteria developed chlorophyll?
7. The chromosome of prokaryotes is circular in shape while the chromosomes of eukaryotes are of different shapes and sizes. How these differences developed?
8. How other membranous structures such as Golgi bodies, endoplasmic reticulum, lysosomes, peroxisomes, etc. were evolved?
9. If billions of prokaryotes are cultured together for hundred years what will be the probability [P#2] of evolution of a eukaryotic cell like the one claimed at the beginning?
10. What is the probability [P#3] of developing a living cell from the material (components) of cell putting together?
11. The most important question is what is life? How it originated?
12. If evolution is a blind process, for example, why is it stopped on human beings? If not what type of organisms will evolve from humans and when will it start?
13. What about the universe? Who created it?
14. How the high degree of discipline present in the universe can be explained?
15. What kind of forces are responsible for the movements of earth in its axis and orbit?

Firstly, in respect to term analysis of this section, we note that the term "chance" (5 mentions) is rebutted with the terms "intelligence" (3 mentions) and "probability" (3 mentions).

Secondly, to note, we can compare this to Pakistani organometallic chemist Mirza Beg’s New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior (1987) and Beg-Thims dialogue (2014) wherein this same Allah-siding issue collide with the extreme atheism purview of Libb Thims.


Left: a 2009 “Big Bang to Humans” evolution timeline video (Ѻ) by Libb Thims, based on Hmolpedia’s evolution timeline. Right: a circa 2000 New Mexico biology textbook book stamp (Ѻ) as a way to warn students about the dangers of believing that evolution is a fact.

Dover | Fiasco
On 18 Oct 2004, the religiously-minded school board of Dover Area High School, passed, by 6-3 vote, the following resolution, in regards to the teaching of evolution to grade nine (age 14-15) biology class students: [19]

“Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life is not taught.”

On 19 Oct 2004, the school board passed a resolution, announced by press release, that science teachers be required to read the following statement in classes that teach evolution: (Ѻ)

“The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the ‘origins of life’ to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.”

(add)

Quotes
The following are related quotes:

“But the great principle of organic development through the struggle for existence, involving descent with modification, was distinctly enunciated by both Goethe and Erasmus Darwin before the close of the 18th century.”
— Lester Ward (1907), Pure Sociology (pg. 537)

“It is true that the controversy over evolution which flared up, I suppose for the last time, in the early 1920s, frequently went to considerable lengths in its denunciation of science. But the storm soon died down. It was already too late to campaign successfully against science.”
— George Lundberg (1947), Can Science Save Us? (pg. 93)

“American science teachers, fearing religious backlash, have become timid about teaching evolution theory to their students.”
— Lauri Lebo (2008), The Devil in Dover; see: evolution vs creationism in education [17]

“Evolution without the direct intervening hand of god removes the fear of eternal damnation, eliminating the consequences of sin. If children learn we come from animals, they’ll behave like animals.”
— Richard Thompson (2005), frequently stated argument during the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial [18]

See also
● Thermodynamic evolution
● Thermodynamics of Evolution

References
1. (a) Rieppel, Olivier. (1988). Fundamentals of Comparative Biology (pg. 117). Birkhauser Verlag.
(b) Caldwell, Michael W. (1999). “On Being and Becoming: Conflation of the Confusion of the ‘Science’ of Evolution”, in: Darwinism Defeated?: The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (editors: Phillip E. Johnson and Denis Lamoureux) (pg. 127). Regent College Publishing.
2. Darwin, Charles. (1859). On the Origin of Species - by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray.
3. Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One), (preview), (ch. 5: "Molecular Evolution", pgs. 121-146). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
4. Darwin, Charles, Marcus, Hans. (1926). The Origin of Species (An Historical Sketch: on the Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species, pgs. 4-17). Plain Label Books.
5. (a) Miller, Jon D., Scott, Eugenie C., Okamoto, Shinji. (2006). “Public Acceptance of Evolution”, Science 11, Aug. Vol. 313, pgs. 765-66.
(b) Anon. (2006). “Did Humans Evolve? Not Us, Say Americans”, The New York Times, Aug. 16.
6. (a) Discover Science Almanac (2004)
(b) Lucilio Vanini – Wikipedia.
7. DesOrmeaux, Paul. (2010). “Article” (14 Reasons Why Creationists are More Intelligently Designed than Evolutionists), Skeptical Inquirer, May/Jun (link).
8. Weber, Bruce H. and Depew, David J. (1999). “Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics Refute the New-Darwinian Synthesis?”, in: Sociobiology and Bioeconomics: the Theory of Evolution and Economic Theory (pgs. 50-78) by Peter Koslowski. Springer.
9. Wells, Spencer. (2002). The Journey of Man: a Genetic Odyssey (pgs. 182-83). Random House.
11. Anon. (2006). Letters: “Increasing Disorder in the Scientific Rank”, The Guardian, Dec 22.
12. Williams, R.J.P. and da Silva, J.R.R. Frausto. (2008). The Chemistry of Evolution: the Development of our Ecosystem. Elsevier.
14. (a) Ball, Philip. (2011). Unnatural: the Heretical Idea of Making People (pg. 17). Vintage Books.
(b) Nye, Bill. (2014). Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation (pg. 5). St. Martin’s Press.
15. Hodgson, Geoffrey M. (2004). The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, Structure, and Darwinism in American Institutionalism (pgs. 71-72). Psychology Press.
16. Wright, Jonathan. (1920). “Empedocles the Primitive Physiologist” (Goethe, pgs. 144-45; evolutionist, pg. 144), American Medicine, 26:139-47, Mar.
17. (a) Dean, Cornelia. (2005). “Evolution Takes a Back Seat in U.S. Classes” (Ѻ), New York Time, Feb 1.
(b) Lebo, Lauri. (2008). The Devil in Dover: an Insider’s Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America (pg. 18). The New Press, 2013.
18. Lebo, Lauri. (2008). The Devil in Dover: an Insider’s Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America (pg. 135). The New Press, 2013.
19. Jones, John. (2005). “Memorandum Opinion” (Ѻ) (pdf), Dec 20.
20. Harris, Sam. (2006). Letter to a Christian Nation (pg. x). Alfred A. Knopf.
21. Author. (c.2010). Biology (§24:Evolution, §§:Facts About Creation of Living Organisms, pgs. 284-285) (Ѻ). Publisher.
22. Zacharias, Ravi. (2008). The End of Reason: a Response to the New Atheists (pgs. 42-43). Zondervan.

Further reading
● Broda, Engelbert. (1975). The Evolution of the Bioenergetic Processes. Pergamon Press.
● Hamilton, Harold J. (1977). “A Thermodynamic Theory of the Origin and Hierarchical Evolution of Living Systems.” Zygon, 12: 289-335.
● Patterson, John. (1984). “Evolution and Thermodynamics”, in Scientists Confront Creationism (ch. 6, pgs. 99-116) by Laurie R. Godfrey. W. W. Norton & Co.
● Campbell, J.H. (1988). “Evolution as Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics: Halfway There?” In: B.H. Weber, D.J. Depew and J.D. Smith (Eds.), Entropy, Information and Evolution, pgs. 257-84, (Cambridge: MIT Press).
● (a) Kaila, Ville R.I. and Annila, Arto. (2008). “Natural Selection for Least Action”, Proceedings of the Royal Society A.
(b) Zyga, Lisa. (2008). “Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics”, Aug 11, PhysOrg.com.

External links
● Evolution – Wikipedia.