From Zumdahl Chemistry Sixth edition
Gibbs free energy equation in Chemistry indicates whether a chemical reaction will occur spontaneously or not. It is derived out of the second law of thermodynamics and takes the form.
dG = dH - TdS
dG = the change in Gibbs free energy
dH = the change in enthalpy the flow of energy reaction.
T = Temperature
dS = Change in entropy Sfinal state - Sinitial state
For evolution to occur the dS is always going to be negative because the
final state will always have a lower entropy then the initial state.
dH of a dipeptide from amino acids = 5-8 kcal/mole ,(Hutchens, Handbook
of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
dh for a macromolecule in a living system = 16.4 cal/gm (Morowitz,
Energy flow in Biology.
Zumdauhl Chemistry sixth edition
When dS is negative and dH is positive the Process is not spontaneous at
any temperature. The reverse process is spontaneous at all temperatures.
The implications are that evolution could not have happen now or in the past. genes could not have been added to the cytoplasm of the cell along with producing any gene's in the first.
Production of information or complexity by any chemical process using a polymer of amino acids is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics. If any proteins were formed by chance they would immediately break apart.
Evolution Cannot Happen.
Evolution RIP
Moderator: Moderators
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #101
[Replying to post 98 by Donray]
I will in an up coming thread. If I understand what you are saying.Anyone notice that EarthScienceguy cannot defend his belief in kinds and adaptation?
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #102
EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 99 by DeMotts]
Trillions of species of life does not help your situation. Each coding protein has 100 to 300 amino acids. The number of different combinations is beyond comprehension. One coding protein of 100 amino acids has 10^115 possible combinations.
I do not have that much faith in nature. But you can.
You keep on throwing up big numbers of combinations. Do you know the factors behind it, and how science would say it developed. Would you care to address the point I made about the development being accumulative with a filter (the filter of natural selection). Why don't you address that point??? It doesn't seem to me that without understanding my point about that there is the comprehension about how proteins can develop.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20845
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 363 times
- Contact:
Post #103
Moderator CommentEarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 83 by DrNoGods]
I can see you are struggling with the math that is ok I understand. Math is hard.
Please avoid the personal comments.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #104
[Replying to post 96 by DrNoGods]
Far from failing to prove that evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamic, I also showed how the gibbs free energy equation predicts hereditary in nature and mutations in natures that can be observed.
Unlike your "Big Eye" paper that was trying to describe something that
cannot be observed. So you can BELIEVE all you want that some light
sensitive spot turned into an eye, but that has never been observed. So
in the end it is simply a BELIEF THAT YOU HAVE. A belief that I do not
share.
The gibbs free energy equation can also predict why there are "hot spots" in the genome where most of the mutations happen.
The gibbs free energy equation can also explain why more mutations happen under UV light.
All of these are observable events that can be tested. Again unlike your "Big Eye" paper
The gibbs free energy equations also predict why we observe the degeneration of genomes overtime.
It also predicts a limit to the amount of change a species can make is a sole function of heredity. Which can also be observed.
It was very successful discussion thank you for participating.
Far from failing to prove that evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamic, I also showed how the gibbs free energy equation predicts hereditary in nature and mutations in natures that can be observed.
Unlike your "Big Eye" paper that was trying to describe something that
cannot be observed. So you can BELIEVE all you want that some light
sensitive spot turned into an eye, but that has never been observed. So
in the end it is simply a BELIEF THAT YOU HAVE. A belief that I do not
share.
The gibbs free energy equation can also predict why there are "hot spots" in the genome where most of the mutations happen.
The gibbs free energy equation can also explain why more mutations happen under UV light.
All of these are observable events that can be tested. Again unlike your "Big Eye" paper
The gibbs free energy equations also predict why we observe the degeneration of genomes overtime.
It also predicts a limit to the amount of change a species can make is a sole function of heredity. Which can also be observed.
It was very successful discussion thank you for participating.
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #106
Walterbl wrote: We have never observed the formation of proteins from basic aminoacids (abiogenesis). We have also never observed macroevolution, or the appearance of completey new structures.
We have observed 'macro-evolution' if you mean the creation of new species.
Here are some example of observed macro evolution.
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/ ... dence.html
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1645 times
Post #107
[Replying to post 104 by EarthScienceguy]
There are plenty of examples of light sensitive areas and organs (eyes) in various states between simple light sensitive cells and full up eyes, for example in molluscs:
http://www.molluscs.at/mollusca/index.h ... /eyes.html
There is no question that this process happens, or has been observed. The "eye paper" showed that the time frame for it could be relatively short even for something as complex as an eye. '
And what does any of this have to do with evolution violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Trying to dodge the question again because you can't support this claim? Reassigning variables in equations to something they don't actually mean, confusing probabilities with microstates, not knowing the difference between increasing and decreasing entropy, or open and closed thermodynamic systems, misusing statistics and creating random large numbers to then misuse those, etc. etc. is not fooling anyone.
I thought there was a way to do a poll here but don't see a link for that. It would be interesting to see how many people you have convinced of your OP claim ... both those who support evolution, and those who don't but also don't believe that you have shown via your various attempts at arithmetic and chemistry that your OP claim has been supported (ie. they agree with you on evolution, but don't agree that you have actually proven your OP claim in this thread).
Unlike your "Big Eye" paper that was trying to describe something that
cannot be observed. So you can BELIEVE all you want that some light
sensitive spot turned into an eye, but that has never been observed. So
in the end it is simply a BELIEF THAT YOU HAVE. A belief that I do not
share.
There are plenty of examples of light sensitive areas and organs (eyes) in various states between simple light sensitive cells and full up eyes, for example in molluscs:
http://www.molluscs.at/mollusca/index.h ... /eyes.html
There is no question that this process happens, or has been observed. The "eye paper" showed that the time frame for it could be relatively short even for something as complex as an eye. '
The gibbs free energy equation can also predict why there are "hot spots" in the genome where most of the mutations happen.
The gibbs free energy equation can also explain why more mutations happen under UV light.
All of these are observable events that can be tested. Again unlike your "Big Eye" paper
The gibbs free energy equations also predict why we observe the degeneration of genomes overtime.
It also predicts a limit to the amount of change a species can make is a sole function of heredity. Which can also be observed.
And what does any of this have to do with evolution violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Trying to dodge the question again because you can't support this claim? Reassigning variables in equations to something they don't actually mean, confusing probabilities with microstates, not knowing the difference between increasing and decreasing entropy, or open and closed thermodynamic systems, misusing statistics and creating random large numbers to then misuse those, etc. etc. is not fooling anyone.
I thought there was a way to do a poll here but don't see a link for that. It would be interesting to see how many people you have convinced of your OP claim ... both those who support evolution, and those who don't but also don't believe that you have shown via your various attempts at arithmetic and chemistry that your OP claim has been supported (ie. they agree with you on evolution, but don't agree that you have actually proven your OP claim in this thread).
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
DeMotts
- Scholar
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 22 times
Post #108
It's not a matter of whether it helps my "situation". It's an illustration that life goes down innumerable pathways and extant species survive.EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 99 by DeMotts]
Trillions of species of life does not help your situation. Each coding protein has 100 to 300 amino acids. The number of different combinations is beyond comprehension. One coding protein of 100 amino acids has 10^115 possible combinations.
I do not have that much faith in nature. But you can.
You've claimed that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, it has been convincingly argued that your interpretation is incorrect. What you haven't done at any point is explain WHY it looks very much like we are living on an ancient planet where life did evolve. Has god created a world that is designed to trick us into thinking that evolution has happened? Why did god create and destroyed 99% of species? Is it because they sinned? Did trilobites fornicate inappropriately so they had to be destroyed by god for being evil? Why do we see different hominids? Why can we see the macro evolution of creatures like the horse? Can you explain anything or are you just going to keep yelling about Gibbs free energy until DrNoGods has to explain it to you again?
Post #110
[Replying to post 104 by EarthScienceguy]
The second law of thermodynamic only is relevant if an individual had to maintain and expand itself by itself, but this is not the case.
In many ways it like how things fly, by other forces overpower the gravitational force. And thereby violate the law of gravity.
If mutations violate the second law of thermodynamic, down syndrome wouldn't be a thing. But we are feed more energy than what is needed for the evolutionary process to work. Absorbsion of energy and selection pressures are among the forces that allow evolution to "fly".
Lifeforms get amino acids from absorbing (eating) other lifeforms and threw chemical reactions. The producers, the plants, absorb energy through photosynthesis involving biological waste and the leftover radiation from the suns entropy. Than carnivores get their energy from absorbing (eating) plants, and who than get eaten by predators.
There is enough energy provided to our local system (the Earth) by the sun to provide cells with what it needs to duplicate and spread. Grow infants and genomes, and maintaining life.
The second law of thermodynamic only is relevant if an individual had to maintain and expand itself by itself, but this is not the case.
In many ways it like how things fly, by other forces overpower the gravitational force. And thereby violate the law of gravity.
If mutations violate the second law of thermodynamic, down syndrome wouldn't be a thing. But we are feed more energy than what is needed for the evolutionary process to work. Absorbsion of energy and selection pressures are among the forces that allow evolution to "fly".
Lifeforms get amino acids from absorbing (eating) other lifeforms and threw chemical reactions. The producers, the plants, absorb energy through photosynthesis involving biological waste and the leftover radiation from the suns entropy. Than carnivores get their energy from absorbing (eating) plants, and who than get eaten by predators.
There is enough energy provided to our local system (the Earth) by the sun to provide cells with what it needs to duplicate and spread. Grow infants and genomes, and maintaining life.
